Date: Wed, 16 Apr 1997 21:49:40 -0400
Subject: M-G: COCKROACH! #53


COCKROACH! #53

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!

Back issues of Cockroach and my book at
http://www.kmf.org/malecki/

--------------------------------------------------------
1.  Leninism is a form of mysticsim?

2. More lies from the charlatan Oleachea.

3.Work in the mass organizations
  and the problems of Entrism
--------------------------------------------------------
 Leninism is a form of mysticsim?

>Leninism is a religion. Lenin suggests that the Marxist party in the
>form of the Bolshevik Party is vanguard of the working class. He
>claims that there can exist only one marxist party in any one cou
>ntry and that only through it can the working class seize power and
>overthrow capitalism. He argues that the revolutionary leadership of
>the working class consists of a group of professional revoluti
>onaries who are intellectuals. He accepts that his party can make
>mistakes but that it learns from its mistakes. Essentially however
>as revolutionary marxist party it cannot untimely go wrong. It rep
>resents the class truth and the class interests of the working
>class.

I think this comparison grossly simplifies the position of Lenin with
regard to the vanguard party. It also ignores the main difference between
the Leninist idea of party organisation and the Catholic Church - the
difference is that one is a religion, claiming blind loyalty to an unproven
idea and the other is a political movement, whether you agree with it or
not. All similarities between their method of organisation are incidental
or due to Karl's limited understanding of what a Leninist party is all
about.

Lenin did not *suggest* that the Bolshevik Party was the vanguard of the
working class, he said that the party must prove itself in action and
become the vanguard; quite a different proposition. The famous '21
Conditions' around which Communist Parties were organised into the original
Third International stated that there should be one communist Party for one
state, and since Lenin believed that the Communist Party model was the only
correct Marxist party (proven in action, not in any received wisdom on the
part of Lenin), it follows that there can only be one Marxist party in a
country. You may disagree with Lenin politically, but how many Fianna F=E1ils
and PDs are there in Ireland? Are they religious organisations as well?

The reason the revolutionary party ultimately cannot go wrong is *not*
because it is infallible, but because it represents the historic interests
of the working class, as defined by its adherance to the Marxist view that
capitalism will ultimately be overthrown by the power of the working class.
The only inevitability that Marxists place on the victory of socialism is
the inevitability of the unfolding class conflict generated by capitalism.
Again, you may disagree with Marxism on this issue, but it hardly makes
Marxism, or by extension, Leninism, a religion.

>This being so this one true party is the truth and the light. As
>with the Catholic Church it claims to be the one true church
>infallible in faith and doctrine.

See above for my comments on this point.

>Now if this party is the one true party of the working class how is
>this guaranteed. What guarantees it this certainty. In the case of
>the Roman Catholic Church it is guaranteed because god has made it
>so. But the so called marxist party cannot so blatantly make use of
>such ideology. Instead it substitutes marxism. It's truth is
>guaranteed by its marxism. But then how come it is the only true ma
>rxist party? Why are not other parties that claim to be marxist the
>true marxists? There can be no satisfactory answer to this.

There is a perfectly satisfactory answer to this and the question is
whether the Marxist party correctly interprets the social forces at work in
society and uses this interpretation to further its aims - the introduction
of socialism - which is in the historic interests of the working class.
Other parties claiming to be Marxist are judged by these very same
criteria. In Lenin's time, some supported their capitalist governments in
furtherance of a war which killed millions. In our time they participate in
coalition governments which refuse to pay nurses a fair wage, deny people
access to elementary democratic rights such as abortion and give tax cuts
to large corporations, paid for by the high taxes paid by the working
population (to use examples from our own island). It is by these material
failings that other left wing parties are judged, not on how they date
Easter or whether they pray to virgin mothers. Again, this is the
difference between Leninism and religion.

>My view is that several marxist parties can exist side by side in
>any one country. None of them can claim a monopoly of the truth or a
>mystical relationship with it. There are no guarantees that any of
>them can provide the correct way forward so to speak. Furthermore
>there are no guarantees as to which one will prove the most correct.
>Indeed they may even fuse and can also engage in joint politi cal
>action.

The only guarantee is the study of history and the acceptance that there
are lessons which can be learned from it. In this way the party acquires
the collective knowledge of the struggle of the working class for economic
emancipation. There is a saying - 'once bitten, twice shy' - well
reformists are not shy of making mistakes over and over again.

>Marxism is still the most advanced politics the working class has.
>However Leninism is not marxism but a mystical doctrine that has
>been quite successful in presenting itself as real marxism. Ith doe s
>much damage in holding back the struggle for socialism.

I happen to believe that Lenin was a Marxist and was more 'right' than most
of his generation. I wouldn't claim a monopoly of 'rightness' for him, as
I'm sure he wouldn't have himself. Again, the difference between Leninism
and religion. I think that you've failed in your thesis on two fronts -
you've failed to prove that Leninism was/is a religion and you've failed to
differentiate between Marxism and Leninism; yet you still claim to be a
Marxist. Why, when by your account it should be thrown out along with
Leninism?

As they would say in the capitalist courts, case not proven.

MATT KELLY.

--------------------------------------------------------
More lies from the charlatan Oleachea.

Matt writes...
>
>The charlatan Oleachea's rantings, as usual, make for an entertaining
>read.  It's always a pleasure when this mouthpiece for the Arce Borja
>clique can take a break from his arduous responsibilities as great
>helmsman/court jester of the World Macarena Commission to send
>a missive or two in our direction.
>
>Communists will especially get a laugh from his equating of "anti-
>imperialist" and "revolutionary" -- placing himself squarely in the
>company of such great "revolutionaries" as Selassie, Khomeini, and
>the Afghan mujahadeen.

Actually Matt I think that Aldolfo's classical position on the United Front
>from the third period of the Stalinist era is what is wrong with his
ravings. In fact he almost sounds like the Thaleman the leader of the German
CP. And his line if carried out in a serious situation were to be carried
out would prove to be a diaster!

I took a look at Trotsky and the Question of the United Front in Germany.
And there was a great picture of Thaleman reviewing the "Red Front" against
the *real* fascists
(Social Democracy) and then below it another picture where the Nazi party
after taking power and the excution platoons mowing down members of the
German CP.

Aldolf's line on the United Front would be a catastopy in any country.
Because fundementally as a Stalinist he stands the United Front on its head
and demands that everybody take part in the full program of the PCP and
every speech that Gonzalo ever made.

And then on the other hand quite openly admits that he as well as the PCP
are prepared to make a deal with the liberal wing of the Peruvian
bougeoisie. So in fact they have the same fundemental position as the MRTA
on this question of making deals.

It is because nither the PCP, Aldolfo or MRTA have anything do do with a
Leninist combat party to lead the Proletariat to its historical role
encompassed in the "Dictatorship" of the Proletariat. In fact both
organisations base their tactics on at best Guerrilla warfare and in the
case of the PCP and alien and non-revolutionary class the peasantry!

Lenin was quite clear on the politics of the United Front:

The Lessons of the Russian Experience

"During July to August, Kerensky, then head of the gopvernment, was
fulfilling the programme of Kornilkov,the commander-in-chief of the army. He
reinstated at the front the military court-martial and death penalty. He
deprived the duly elected Soviets of all influence upon  government
matters;he pacified the peasants; he doubled the price of bread (under the
state monopoly of foodstuffs); he prepared for the evacutation of
revolutionar Petrograd; he concentrated, with Kornilkov's consent,
counter-revolutionary troops towards the capital; he promised the allies to
iniate a new attack at the front, etc. Such was the general political
background."

"What course did the Bolshevik party take? Not for and instant did it
hesitate to conclude a practical alliance to fight against Kornilkov (when
he broke with Kerensky)"

"Everywhere committees for revolutionary defense were organised, into which
the Bolsheviks entered as a minority. "

>From "What Next" by Trotsky in his polemics against the Stalinist turn to
the "Red Front"...

Naturally the Bolshevik Parties position and Adolfo's and Stalin's position
on the United Front are diametrically opposed to any kind of Lenist policy
on tactical questions. which in fact could be the fate of a *real*
pre-revolutionary situation or revolutionary situation. Aldolfo's blustering
around the United front aimed at the MRTA people and the Red Flag people
must be seen as a farse. But it also is a warning about the bankrupt
politics that Aldolfo and the PCP represent!

In fact there ultimatism in demanding that anybody who does not agree with
them on everything can not be part of their "revolutionary front" is like
spitting in the wind and getting the spit right back in your own face!

Both the PCP and the MRTA have no program or any Bolshevik tactics to solve
the question of leadership for the Peruvian Proletariat. Both of these
organisations base their politics on adventurist petty bougeois actions and
organisation iof alien class forces (the peasantry).

However both should be defended against the Fujimora regime and its
imperialist allies. When they actually do point the guns in the right
direction- (This has not been the case with the PCP especially)

Thus the statement below which Cockroach made at the beginning of this
crisis is still viable.

Bob Malecki

Peru-Imperialism,MRTA, and the hostages!(Declaration)

It is very interesting for poor and working class people to observe the
spectacular occupation of the Japanese Embassy in Peru by the MRTA, the
reactions to this occupation by the imperialists and the hostage question!

In that the MRTA did not occupy and airplane or a train station with
hundreds of hostages of normal people. But took 4 or 5 hundred darlings of
the diplomatic corps, includind a bunch of "military attachees" (in reality
spies) and a bunch of high placed business executives- we see that the
normal reaction of imperialism of "No compromise with terrorism" and "we are
preparing and anti-terrorist army to storm the building" have completely
disappeared! Instead we hear the imperialist spokesman talking about a
peaceful solution to the "crisis".

How quaint that imperialism defends these hostages and darlings of their own
class rule! If it had been poor and working class people who were held
hostage then we would have seen a storming of the building and the
possibility of a blood bath for innocent civilians to show the world that
terrorism must be met with superior force.
However, Fujimora just might storm the embassy despite the "peaceful
solutions" tone coming from the imperialists. Fujimora might decide that the
Peruvian foreign minister is worth the price of a bloody storming.

So the struggle against terrorism in reality depends on *who* is held
hostage-Joe Blow poor and working class people or the darlings of the
imperialist powers. Poor and working class people should have NO TEARS for
these so called "innocent hostages" who in fgact are part and pack in giving
money and political support to the Fujimora regime which has so much blood
of poor and working class people in Peru on their hands! And if any blood is
shed it is entirely because of the bloody regime that Fujimora represents
and which drives militants to these kind of heroric suicidal actions.

At the same time we should support the just demands of the MRTA of releasing
the political prisoners held in concentration like camps and live daily with
torture and murder of opponents to this regime led by Fujimora and backed up
by the military.
At the same time we should say to the people in MRTA that their adventurist
actions of guerilla warfare and small groups of dedicated people with arms
in hand taking on alone the military dictatorship of the Fujimora regime are
completely bankrupted! Only by arming the Peruvian working class and
perasantry both politically and with guns and setting up a real workers and
peasants goverment can sweep away this rotten regime including the darlings
(hostages) that are presently being held.

We should defend these militants despite their adventurist actions against
the Peruvian regime. While at the same time condemning them for political
bankruptcy. We do not need isolated groups of heroes who attack ambassies
and take hostages. We need professional revolutionaries who can mobilize the
working class and peasants who have the social power to sweep the Fujimora
garbage on to the dustbin of history!

And we should no the deference between the MRTA which gets its inspiration
>from the Cuban revolution and the terrorism that evolves out of Islamic
fundementalism which wants to take society back to the middle ages!

We need Communist Bolshevik organosations thoughout Latin America that can
link the struggles to a continental and world movement.

Victory for the MRTA militants and their just demands!

Meet the demands of the MRTA!

Free all militants from the Fujimora concentration camps!

No political support to MRTA's petty bougeois adventurism!

Defend the MRTA from Fujimora and imperialist attack!

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki
--------------------------------------------------------
Work in the mass organizations
and the problems of Entrism...

At 01:00 1997-04-13 PDT, you wrote:
>Hi BOB, I 've noticed the little tiff you've been in with the LCM... people
and
>have to ask how you feel about work in the mass reformist organizations. 
>Trotsky actually did a lot of writing supporting this, as well as the problems
>of entrism.  I have several friends in England who are members of Socialist
>Appeal, a Trotskyist organization.   Many a time I debated work in the NDP and
>critical support of the NDP,  from the stance that you are,  until they
sent me
>a pamphlet.  Work in the mass organizations makes sense a follows the line of
>the Transitional Program.  There is a new political party starting in Canada,
>the New Left Forum,  and I am currently in debate with the organizers on the
>question of critical support for the NDP and work in that organization.  We
>cannot stand aside and tell the working class what to do, we must be with them
>every step of the way!  The way to do this is work in the mass organizations. 
>Tell me what you think.....
>
>
>See yah
>
>Rob

Dear Rob,

Thanks for you interesting letter! In fact I intend to send it to a couple
of three lists along with this reply because it quite clearly shows that the
whole debate around Social Democracy, Trotskyism and entrism or work in side
the reformists parties of Social democracy, including "critical" support
need to be discussed in regards to the new International situation after the
demise of the Soviet Union and the clear trend that appears to be developing
in the Social democracies Internationally in regards to all of this.

First I think we must discuss the vital importance that the destruction of
the degenerated Soviet Union and the deformed workers states in eastern
Europe have played in regards to this new development. I hopefully assume
that most people claiming to be "Trotskyist" realize that the fall of
Stalinism is the central reason why we see Internationally a sharp turn to
the right by the leadership of the Social Democratic Parties towards
becoming quite open bougeois parties who no longer even pay lip service to
the trade union base that it originally derived from. The main reason
Internationally being just the downfall of Stalinism.

Without the Stalinists states who defended in a way collectivized property
forms and in fact were a super power until recently who could in a bizarre
and deformed way stood in the way of capitalist restorationist forces has
opened the door very wide for things to leap to the right in the Social
Democracies. In fact a gigantic vacuum on the left where no pressure is
excerted on the Social Democracy to even pay lip service any longer to be a
representative of the working class and its mass organizations. Because at
present they feel no threat from the left. Why should they when everybody
thinks that "Communism" has been destroyed.

 But a secondary and important development in the Social Democracies (the
entire left as well) is the quality and social background of the human
material which makes up these parties. In the case of the mass social
democratic parties their has been a decisive shift in the party
organizations central political structure and power apparatus from the
tradition trade union leaders who put on a tie and become bureaucrats in the
party or parliamentary groups of these parties. Today the MAJORITY of the
human material in the party organizations have never spent any time at all
in and industry or a trade union but have been recruited direct from schools
and universities and in many cases family relations direct into top
positions in the party apparatus and structures.

In other words a very big difference from the traditional Social democracy
analysed by Trotsky and the Third and Fourth Internationals on this
question. These parties are definitely no longer made up of the classical
human material which justified a tactical orientation towards entrism or in
fact critical support.

The other factor which is both decisive and extremely important is that with
the loss of the traditionalists from power positions in the party
structures, connected to the middle class bougeoisfication of Social
democracy especially since the second world war has changed the fundamentals
on how Trotskyists should be looking at these parties in terms of tactics.

In fact the political programs of the "New" Social Democracy does not any
longer even in a reformist sense be linked to
its formal base in the unions. In fact much of their political program is
orientated to the middle class and its special position in society partially
because the human material in the party structure to a majority come from
this class today rather then the more traditional worker who comes up
through the unions and puts a tie on. And partially because they are no
longer bound by a potential threat from the left from the Stalinists.

One of the key reasons why Trotskyists used the tactic of splitting the base
>from the top was in regards to these parties being bougeois workers parties
in the sense of its links in the class with the party structure. I do not
think that this is the case any longer.

In fact a highly interesting development in Sweden around this stuff is that
the few party loyal Social democrats with any power position left in the
party are talking about a cultural revolution in the Social Democracy in
order to turn it back down the road to the traditional Social Democratic
reformist path. There recipe is to get as many trade union activists on the
upcoming lists in the coming election a year and a half away. But this does
not solve the problem facing Trotskyist today in regards to these parties.
In fact it only makes it more complicated in the traditional stance we have
had on these questions because throwing out formulas will not help us one
bit if we are misjudging reality of what is going on here.

That is why I think that Britain and they are not alone must mean a entire
new orientation in regards to tactics from Trotskyists in regards to these
Social Democratic formations. The dialectics of this stuff is that the
formation of a natural left wing in the class will be necessary after the
demise of Stalinism. This means that we are beginning to see the entire
reorientation of the workers movement Internationally after the demise of
Stalinism. Trotskyist must see that what is going on in Britain is one
expression of this new orientation. Just as in sweden as elsewhere this
process is taking place.

If we understand this process that is going on and try to adjust out tactics
to the specific conditions in each country that expresses this new political
orientation we may be taking a step in the right direction. Thus in Britain
I think it entirely correct the line of "No critical" support to the "New"
Labor party of Tony Blair. And "critical" support of the SLP which
organizationally splits the class from the bougeoisfication of the Social
Democracy. Trotskyists must always be for the independent mobilization of
the class and its unions. What better expression could one have then the
present struggle going on in England?

Finally this orientation could mean a number of different tactics depending
on the situation. England I have already taken up. But we could have a
scenario of the Euro-Communists playing the SLP role or we could have a
scenario of traditionalists putting up lists with trade union candidates or
what ever. But the decisive think is to struggle for the deepening of this
split with the tactic of "critical" support and not strengthening the
tendency of unification of a bougeoisfied Social Democracy! That is turning
Trotskyism on its head and in fact turning the clock back with a lot of
authodox words that do not mean dip shit in the concrete reality we are facing..

And as far as the NDP debate. I am unfortunately to far away from their and
uninformed about the NDP history in relationship to its preesent trajectory.
However the trend Internationally appears to be quite clear.
Hopefully those who claim to be "Trotskyist" will begin to see this and
correct its orientation. However unfortunately the problem is that just as
everything else has moved to the right after the demise of the Soviet Union
so have those claiming to be Trotskyist! Thus we see the spectacular tailing
of just about every political formation in the world these days for the sake
of unity on the lowest common denominator.

For The Rebirth of the Fourth International!

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 working-class people

and now starting the "Never Ending Story"...

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

Back issues of Cockroach and my book at
http://www.kmf.org/malecki/

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








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