Date: Wed, 5 Mar 1997 23:37:52 -0500
Subject: M-G: COCKROACH! #42 (The Neo-Stalinist,Menshevik Trojka!)


COCKROACH! #42 (The Neo-Stalinist,Menshevik Trojka!)

A EZINE FOR POOR AND WORKING CLASS PEOPLE.

WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT OUR CHAINS.

It is time that the poor and working class people
have a voice on the Internet.

Contributions can be sent to <malecki-AT-algonet.se>
Subscribtions are free at    <malecki-AT-algonet.se>

Now on line! Check out the Home of COCKROACH!

http://www.algonet.se/~malecki

How often this zine will appear depends on you!
--------------------------------------------------------
1. The Neo-Stalinist,Menshevik Trojka!

2. Special Announcement! 
-------------------------------------------------------

The Neo-Stalinist,MenshevikTrojka! 
A Reply to Godena,Proyect an Joao...

Well, here we are once again! It took two months and once again the new list 
MI is
confronted with the same central question as the old list of M1. Once again 
the list is
lining up with two very diametrically opposed positions on the very central 
questions
for Marxist's. And the questions are represented by to definite trends in the
International Workers movement. On the one side are the neo-Stalinists and
Mensheviks of varying degree and on the other the Trotskyists. On M1 there 
was also
a third trend represented by Aldolfo of the old hard line Stalinists.

The key questions that once again come to the fore and will do so time and 
again is
the question of the Vanguard Party Vs the Broadies and the question of which 
class
and which program (these two have a programatical and ideological link!)...

Mr. Godena is the ideological and programatical expression of neo-Stalinism. 
Thus
finding themselves in a shambles they are turning to a fairly cute trick. 
Stalin, of
course I criticize Stalin, but ideologically and programmatically argue for the
continuation of Stalin's political line. This is directly connected to 
writing off the
working class as the *only* revolutionary force in Society and replacing it 
with and
ideology which opens the way to anti-imperialist popular fronts and main stream
Social democratic reformism of old in order to take over the role of the Social
Democratic leadership who more and more appear to be deserting to the 
bougeoisie.

Proyect is the organizational expression of this trend. He with his line on 
the party
question, in fact rewriting of history, and blaming the woes of the 
Trotskyists and all
the other Vanguardists on the party question by arguing that Lenin was not a
vanguardist at all! In fact it was Mr. Z who was responsible for misleading 
all of us
down the path of being "sectarians" because we believe that the party is the 
Vanguard
of the vanguard and that in fact it will only be those elements in the workers
movement who rise above economism, reformism, trade unionism, etc. that can be
the link between the party and the whole class. Against this interpretation 
Proyect
comes forth with the organizational conception of the "broadies". In fact 
the swamp
who after the defeat of Stalinism and the desertion of the Social Democracy 
into the
camp of the bougeoisie and the various anti-imperialists trends shall build 
a new party
with just these kind of desperate elements looking for a new home.

This by the way is hardly nothing new. Just a re-shuffle of the 
neo-Stalinist, reformist,
anti-imperialist forces into something more permanent. I call it the 9 and 1/2
International. And this organizational concept has the definite political 
thrust of the
programs of both the second and third Internationals (under Stalin)..A 
mixture of
Godena ideology about the non-revolutionary character of the working class+a
popular front anti-imperialist program+
the organizational concept of Proyect. This is what the *real* meaning of 
this debate
is about so far.

Against this is the idea of a Bolshevik Leninist International along the 
Trotskyist and
Cannon lines based on the Transitional Program and the historical ideology and
program of the Bolshevik Party in Russia, the first four congresses of the Third
International, the left opposition and the founding documents of the Fourth
International! The two are clear and irrevocably opposed to one another. 

These have been the battle lines since I first came two the list here at 
Jefferson
village. The reason is that it is exactly the two solutions which confront 
us not only
here on the lists but in living reality also. It has been the question of 
questions since
the victory of the October Revolution till our day. It has been a great 
struggle and in
fact the Trotskyists have not only been correct yesterday, but are still 
around to take
up the mantle and struggle against the leftovers of Stalinism and Menshevism 
that are
once again trying to gather their forces after the death of Stalinism and in 
fact the
desertion of the Social Democracy to the bourgeoisie! The swamp who does not 
want
to follow Stalin and the Social Democratic traitors off the scene are trying 
to create a
broadie International on the crumbs of the old and dead second and third
Internationals! And they are getting a lot of help from the liqiudators of 
Trotskyism
who as usual are tailing these events.

The only thing new? is our friend Joao who has appeared recently. First with a
document about "Worker Communism" and now a critique of the "Transitional
Program. So let us see what our sympathizer with "worker Communism" has to say; 

Joao writes;
>A critique of Trotsky's 'Transitional Program' (1938)

>1. "The objective requisites of socialist revolution"

. We now know that capitalism's best years were yet to come when
>Trotsky wrote this document. Contrary to what he says, keynesianism
>would indeed rescue capitalism from its acute crisis of these years,
>spreading the most astonishing period of sustained growth and technical
>revolution that the history of humanity as ever witnessed (1947-72).
>There's a strong suggestion in Trotsky's text, and elsewhere, that all
>capitalist countries would end up turning to fascism. In short,
>practically everything he says here is proved wrong.

I deleted the long and boring beginning of point 1 to get down to the 
central question
Joao puts. According to Joao Trotsky was mistaken about capitalism. In fact he
claims that "we" know that capitalism best years were to come. And that
"keynesianism" would rescue capitalism. How quaint our modern historian is. 
A bit
blind about what is going on today and ignorant about yesterday is the only 
thing one
can say about anybody who says this kind of stuff. In the first place the 
argument
about the best years of capitalism must be seen in the light of the 
historical defeats
imposed on the working class before the war and the consolidation of the 
Stalinist and
Social Democratic leadership after the war which gave rise to this new 
prosperous era
of capitalism. Unfortunately Joao leaves out the destruction of a good part 
of the
world, the victory of fascism, the millions upon millions of dead, the 
liquidation of
the Trotskyists etc. That was the price of this so called "best years to 
come" line that
Joao is claiming. And the unprecedented defense of Keynes! Well,
what is happening to all those great reforms by the Social Democrats who got 
their
second chance thanks to Stalin and the Imperialists now! The great Keynes rescue
was in fact dip shit! What is happening today is that all that stuff is 
being quickly
taken back as the bourgeoisie now declares war on its own working classes. Why?
Is it because Keynes worked? What a joke. 

And in fact the last little quip about many countries becoming fascists. 
well, we are
not their yet but national socialism is growing strong in many countries. 
And in fact it
will probably take fascist solutions to smash the working classes in imperialist
countries. I doubt if the workers will accept peacefully for a long period 
of time the
position of being thrown back to the conditions of the beginning of the labor
movement.

2. "The Proletariat and its direction"
>
>Leon could be a loathsome guy. I never could understand what he had
>against Andres Nin and the P.O.U.M..
>O.K., everything's ready for revolution, except all these traitors and
>imbeciles that can't see it yet.

How about the Popular Front? In fact the situation in Spain was much like 
the regime
of February-October in Russia. A central question between victory and defeat for
revolution. But this cheap trick of posing Trotsky as some crazy sectarian who
thought that everybody was a "traitor or imbecile" is a vile slander. In 
fact it only
shows your softness on the popular front politics which means and has meant
incredible defeats everywhere. What is interesting is that you are in practice
defending the Menshevik formula of revolution. Thus have learned nothing 
about the
history of the October Revolution. Its success was the defeat of the popular 
front
politics of the Mensheviks. Because if the Menshevik line had won out there 
would
not have been and October. Trotsky was basically translating the lessons of 
October
to the Spanish situation and the betrayals of those who in fact had the 
Menshevik line.
>
>
>3. "Minimum program and transition program"
>
>Interesting. However, in the last paragraph, he seems to be seeing a
>continuum between minimum demands and proletarian revolution. This is
>yet to be proven. Socialism step by step never worked. Until now, we
>were never able to keep a sufficient level of sustained and mounting
>pressure from below.
>That approach seems to be dependent once again of his "decadent
>capitalism" supposition that we now know was wrong then. Is it right now?
>We can never know for sure. We'll have to keep knocking.

This also shows your workerist communist bankruptcy. As if enough pressure from
below is the receipt for revolution. In fact without the party to lead the 
events leading
up to the pre-revolutionary and revolutionary situations that capitalism 
creates in its
never ending death cycle there will never be a revolution. Just new rounds 
of defeats!
>
>
>4. "Wage mobile scale and mobile scale of work hours"
>
>Excellent stuff. It's feasibility certainly deserves to be studied in
>detail.

Oh Yes! I bet this stuff elementary trade union stuff you like. Fits right 
into the
picture your painting of pressure from below. Joao can use this to tail the 
working
class.
>
>
>5. "The unions in the transition epoch"
>
>I have no objections on the general idea, but I wouldn't remove entirely
>the option of creating new unions (or similar organisms), although not
>in a sectist base of course. There have been some interesting and
>creative initiatives in France (in a totally apolitical approach) among
>nurses, civil servants, etc..
>I wonder if his numbers on unionization are still correct generally. For
>Portugal, they're not. We do a little better than that.

Glad that you like the position on the trade unions.
>
>
>6. "Factory committees"
>
>I don't think we can speak of "dual power" with the simple constitution
>of factory committees. We had lots of those in Portugal back in 1974-75 and
>the state bourgeois power was unimpressed. The only problem worrying
>them was restless far-left military rebellion. We had workers committees on
>the factories (many of them occupied) and popular commissions on a
>neighborhood basis but not any integration between them. And no
>political party willing or able to lead this movement. I would start
>speaking of dual power when a significative part of the production is in
>the workers' hands, politically organized at local, national and
>international level. I don't believe we can do this in a national basis
>anymore. Only after disrupting decisively the core capitalist countries
>(although maybe through a revolutionary movement that can have its
>beginnings anywhere in the near periphery) can we move forward to build
>real, solid workers' power.

I don't think the TP has put forth the slogan of factory committees just for 
a situation
of dual power. These organizational forms are connected to the living struggle.
Whether they be strike Committees, factory committees, or workers militias. 
It is the
training ground of the workers in taking control of their own future. And 
will be a
part in the desperate struggle towards the dictatorship of the proletariat. 
Thus the
Trotskyists put forth these organizational forms when and where it is 
possible to raise
the level of organization.
>
>
>7. "Commercial secret and workers control over industry"
>
>Trotsky believed (Lenin too, hellas) that the process of concentration
>and centralization of capital would lead to a giant national trust. The
>proletarian revolution's task would be simply to expropriate the
>bourgeoisie and keep on the economic planification by more or less
>similar means. There will be, of course, some measure of workers'
>control but the bulk of the planning will be transferred to "specialists
>sincerely devoted to the people: accountants, statisticians, engineers,
>savants, etc.". Very slippery business indeed.
>Trotsky's obsession with "great public works" betrays his capital
>accumulation approach to building socialism. Given the time he would be
>starting a "great leap forward" of his own. I always had the impression
>that that story about "degenerate workers' state" should be read like
>this: put me in the place of that son-of-a-bitch and I'll un-degenerate
>it in a few weeks.

No it doesn't betray Trotsky. It only shows your sympathy with the "state 
Capitalists".
And in fact the dictatorship of the Proletariat will certainly be a 
centralized planned
economy to combat and destroy the centralized capitalists and imperialist 
economies.
No other solution in a transition epoch is possible.It points to your 
complete lack of
understanding of the necessity of a dictatorship in the Transitional epoch.
>
>
>8. "The expropriation of certain capitalist groups"
>
>Again that progressive "expropriation" approach. He now takes care to
>contrast it with the reformist's nationalization's and, on point 4), we
>do have mention to a linkage with workers' and peasants' power. But this
>is the guy of all those expedient administrative methods back in Russia,
>including integration of the unions in the state. I always found a facet
>of cold, "modernist" social engineer on him. I've read some "visionary"
>texts of his once and it was stuff worth of "1984" or "Brave New World".

This also must be seen in the recent for a state! The state being the 
organizations of
the Proletariat to enforce their rule over the capitalists and imperialists 
who get
smashed in the process but are desperately trying to return to power. The 
struggle in
the transitional epoch will be a desperate struggle and not a question of 
decentralizing
power. But exactly the opposite.

>9. "Expropriation of private banks and 
>
>All this question of "finance capital" being in command (it goes back to
>Hilferding, by way of Lenin) needs to be reevaluated. There's no strong
>evidence supporting it.
>A single state bank then. I won't pronunciate myself on the technical
>side of the question. But I'm already seeing too much state here and too
>few internationalism. And this state is the bourgeois state, that later
>will pass "from the explorers' to the workers' hands" (last paragraph).
>Just like that? Totally unchanged?

This historical stuff on expropriation of the banks and a state bank is 
entirely correct.
It has to be seen in the context of the Proletariat in a specific country 
seizing power.
However this does not exclude another centralized solution if power was to 
go into
the proletariat in several countries at the same time. But the necessity of 
a state bank
and centralism under the transitional epoch are in principle correct and in 
fact the
only practical solution to the opposition that will be mounted by attempts to
counter-revolution.
>
>
>10. "Strike pickets, combat units, workers' militia and arming the
>proletariat"
>
>This was certainly appropriate in the 20's and 30's. We haven't had this
>kind of permanent street gang warfare since then, which doesn't mean we
>won't have it soon if the present crisis keeps deepening.
>The British S.W.P. no doubt draws from here its appeal for some physical
>action against the fascist gangs. Well, I'm all for it. But I hardly see
>any historical analogy. Yet.
>The National Rifle Association will be delighted.

Just because Joao has grown up in an era of "class peace" does not make this 
stuff
old. In fact Korea today where already we are seeing attacks by the cops on the
workers with mobile and army units with tear gas is only a step away from real
bullets. So what do you have to come with in regards to combating the cops and
military who will be called out to uphold order against workers who are 
beginning to
realize that everything they have fought for is quickly being taken back? 
And in fact
the pun about the National Rifle Association is not funny. One of the best 
things
about the American Proletariat is the fact that they are armed. I think that 
every
American worker should support the NRA against bans on guns!

>
>11. "Alliance of the workers and the peasants"
>
>The peasant question in the most developed capitalist countries has been
>completely shaken since then. The bourgeoisie has learned its bit too.
>It doesn't like to be fired upon from two fronts. As things are for the
>moment in Europe, with heavy subsidizing of agricultural production by
>state and UE institutions, I don't think we stand much of a chance of
>having the peasantry on our side. Anyway, its number has decreased
>dramatically. We would expect further advance of the capitalist
>relations of production into the countryside but that is precisely where
>the bourgeois-peasant alliance is putting the brakes on. In developed
>countries, wherever the small peasantry isn't nearly extinct it's
>heavily engaged in the bourgeoisie's embrace.

I think here that the alliance of the workers and peasants will have to be 
changed. In
some countries to be replaced with and alliance of workers and urban poor..
>
>
>12 - "The fight against imperialism and war"
>
>This is mostly of pure historical interest.

Yes and will have to be rewritten before the next imperialist showndown.
>
>
>13. "The worker-peasant government"
>
>The same here. The worker-peasant alliance could still make some sense
>in countries like India, Egypt or Indonesia but it must engage a faction
>of the local bourgeoisie in some kind of national-popular democratic
>regeneration movement. Success for a proletarian revolution is
>unthinkable here unless integrated in a global movement that strikes
>decisively the core capitalist countries.

OK. I will buy this.
>
>
>14. "The soviets"
>
>Fine.
Ditto...
>
>
>15. "Backward countries and the program of transitory demands"
>
>There are no "colonial or semi-colonial countries" left. Permanent
>revolution is out of business, if it ever made any sense. No
>significative "feudal heritage" can be found anywhere. No national
>independence problems. All countries of some relevance in the world
>today are predominantly capitalist and industrialized, although most of
>them are peripheric and dependent, which is totally another problem.
>There are more hunter-gatherers than "feudals" now-a-days but I suppose
>we're not considering permanent-revolutionizing the inuit, the
>amazonians or Iryan Jaya.
>Permanent revolution was an interesting concept in the sense of world
>revolution. But if we have learned something with the XXth century
>revolutions it is precisely that we can't voluntaristicaly whip out some
>isolated backward country into socialism just like that.

Joao, In a sense you are reasoning right and drawing the wrong conclusion. 
In fact
your reasoning proves the theory of the "Permanent Revolution"...
>
>
>16. "Transitory demands program in the fascist countries"
>
>Painful to read. Totally frustrated expectations.

Actually this section will perhaps be absolutely vital if a proletarian 
solution to the
coming crisis does not evolve!
>
>
>17. "The situation in the USSR and the tasks of the transitory epoch"
>
>The same here. Wrong, totally wrong analysis.
>How could he, at this time, still point "real Bolsheviks" among the
>"soviet" bureaucracy? I wonder what happened to Reiss. He must have had
>cardiac collapse on reading this. The GPU found him stone dead already.
>"Cain-Stalin"? Is this premonitory or something? Iosip Djugashvili,
>where is your brother Leon?

Look, why don't you admit that you are of the Schactmanite "state 
capitalist" school.
And actually this stuff is not irrelevant because of the disintegration of 
the Soviet
Union. We still have the deformed workers states like China,Cuba, North 
Korea, and
Vietnam to deal with.
>
>
>18. "Against opportunism and unprincipled revisionism"
>
>A bit of rhetoric's won't do no harm. No analysis of the different
>patterns of reformist and opportunistic degeneration is offered. No ways
>shown for avoiding them. 

Well, what Trotsky meant is taking on those who had left the field of Bolshevik
Leninist politics for another political line. Historically the Stalinists 
and Mensheviks
and today the neo-Stalinists and Mensheviks.
>
>
>19. "Against sectarianism"
>
>This must be against the bordiguists and other left-communists. It's a
>piece of sectarian loathe on its own, wrapped up in dreams of grandeur.
>Worst was to come. I just wish he could have followed trotskyism.

Partially! 
>
>
>20. "A place for youth! A place for laboring women!"
>
>Sure, why not. If this is the only prescription available against
>opportunistic degeneration, I'm afraid it won't take us very far.
>
>
>21. "Under the banner of the IV International"
>
>Well, I'm afraid the "skeptics" were right. It didn't work. It had a
>complete program, doctrine, tradition and some cadre endowed with an
>"unmatched temper". How ungrateful of the workers not to have gathered
>at once under this "stainless banner". I'm glad there are some dedicated
>people still trying to kick start this thing.

Don't count on it. The struggle is certainly not over and in fact the objective
conditions (the demise of the Stalinists and the desertion of the Social 
Democracy to
the Bourgeoisie) are better today then at any time before the creation of 
the Left
Opposition and later on the FI. In fact it is the leftovers of the 
Stalinists and the Social
Democrats that are really desperate these days. 
>
>Now, my trotskyite friends. This document here is a precious historical
>relic indeed, but it's quite obvious it can only have a very residual
>and occasional usefulness in any serious reconstructive effort of
>marxist politics today. Why do you keep brandishing it like the holy
>grail of revolution?

Well, it is because the neo-stalinists, Mensheviks, worker Communist, who are
continually trying to organize new defeats for the working class with 
programs that
are even far more "precious historical relics"! All of the stuff that you 
people are
coming with is just a reprise of the old. This makes the Trotskyist and 
their program
vital in the future of organizing a Bolshevik Vanguard against the political 
programs
that you represent. In fact that is what has and will be going on both 
before now and
in the future. The basic tenants of revolutionary politics both tactically and
programmatically have not real changed very much in the last decades. The one
positive thing for the working class is that the Stalinists no longer have 
state power in
the Soviet Union nor the parties Internationally to enforce their line as 
before in
history. Thus leaving the way open for a chance for the Trotskyists and 
Bolshevik
Leninists to once again take the stage at the head of the Proletariat..

Naturally part of that process is exposing our Troika on MI who would 
despite all the
rhetoric continue with the old rotten politics of Stalinism and Menshevism 
under the
guise of something "new".

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT!

TO ANTI-DEATH PENALTY ACTIVISTS, ANTI-RACIST ACTIVISTS, 
SUPPORTERS OF MUMIA ABU-JAMAL, AND ALL OTHERS INTERESTED 
IN SOCIAL JUSTICE:

                  ****  SAVE THIS DATE:  MAY 3, 1997  ****

AD-HOC COMMITTEE WORKS TO BROADEN COMMUNITY
OUTREACH AND MOBILIZE GRASSROOTS ACTION
********************************************************

The Ad Hoc Coalition Against Racism and the Death Penalty is 
sponsoring an exciting media event and conference on Saturday, 
May 3, 1997 in Philadelphia, PA to increase the level of community 
consciousness and mobilize grassroots participation around issues of 
the death penalty including, but not limited to: 

1.  Education regarding the need to end the death penalty, including the
roots of racism and class disparity in determining who is executed, and
discussion on a national mobilization for a Moratorium on 
the Death Penalty.

2.  Increasing and consolidating campaigns to free Political Prisoners/
Prisoners of War through community education and support; 

3.  Organizing to build a strong community-based movement to 
stop police beatings, frame-ups and murder.
                      
WHAT CAN YOU DO:

Individuals and organizations who are eager to work with the
Organizing Committee to insure maximum community participation
by sharing mailing lists, hosting pre-conference meetings,
organizing transportation to help get folks to the conference,
donating educational and other materials, broadcasting live from
the event, videotaping the event to use for future grassroots
organizing, and offering your ideas, experience and concrete
support should contact ASAP:

Sis. Marpessa Kupendua - nattyreb-AT-ix.netcom.com
Bro. Komboa Ervin - komboa-AT-mindspring.com

!! SPEAK TRUTH TO THE PEOPLE !! ALL OUT FOR MAY 3RD!

MORE INFORMATION FORTHCOMING.
=================================================
Check Out My HomePage where you can,

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

Or Get The Latest Issue of,

COCKROACH, a zine for poor and workingclass people

http://www.algonet.se/~malecki

--------------------------------------------------------



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