File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9708, message 45


Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 23:41:17 -0400
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: M-G: COCKROACH! #78


COCKROACH! #78

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. Proyect and the "Trotskyists"!

2. Bordigists in sheeps chothing. Part 3

3. The Ireland debate...

4. Hillier's examples!
-------------------------------------------------------
Proyect and the "Trotskyists"!

In a new letter (two letters in two days, obviously Proyect must be feeling 
like a settler in a wagon train circle fighting off those horrible savages)
Proyect lists up a number of people on this list and links them to various 
trends of thought which are surpose to represent how bankrupt "Trotskyism" 
is and renewing his lies about the "Trotskyists" never led anything which 
David replied to with some concrete examples of people and organizations 
claiming to be Trotskyist did have some mass influence.

Yes, there are some very serious political differences in the various groups 
and trends claiming to be "Trotskyist". This can not be denied. They are 
linked to the complete historical domination of the Stalinist and Social 
Democratic domination in the workers movement especially since the end of 
world war 2, but also the victory of the Stalinists in the former Soviet 
Union in the Bolshevik Party.

The political differences range over a large area of programmatic and 
political positions which in fact are vital to the victory or defeat of the 
world proletarian revolution. And many of these differences will have to be 
ironed out before and during the coming struggles which will be facing all 
of us.

But Proyect who's best shot is cheer leading the FLSN and the Cubans while 
at home he is portraying some sort of Social patriotic "Yankee Doodle" 
socialism at best and more recently denying even the necessity or even 
possibility of revolutions on the North American continent and at the same 
time reaffirming his own role as recreating the "new left" of the sixties 
and seventies in some sort of anti-imperialist broadie coalition of 
progressive intellectual types around such astounding magazines as the New 
Left review.

I mean really Proyect if anybody should be accused of doing nothing these 
days and even back then it must be the intellectual vanguard of the American 
left from Allen Ginsburg over the LP types who suck up to the Democratic 
Party to the "Independent Marxist" intellectuals who's at best during the 
roaring sixties were a chorus around the popular front and Social Patriotic 
slogans like "Bring the boys Home!" and sucking up to pro-imperialist 
democrats like Vance Hartke!

What has the new left done since the war or before the war in America. 
Before the war it did not even exist it was more of the traditional 
political trends of the workers movement foremost Stalinists and the then 
Trotskyists SWP. During the war it was this large lump of shit on the 
universities who mostly were in to "Hell no we won't go" as they ran off to 
Canada and England like Clinton. After the war most got over their 
revolutionary fever and went on to careers in life and raising families.

Albeit a small part like yourself stayed around and played the "radical 
marxist intellectual" writing for the rags who had a guilt ridden and slowly 
diminishing amount of subscribers until today.

With the demise of Stalinism which was in fact the bottom political line of 
the new left politically represented in the popular front, single issuism 
and an un serious attitude to taking seriously the idea of building a really 
serious Trotskyist revolutionary alternative in the United States including 
the SWP which you were a member of at that time who turned being big and 
opportunism into breaking with its Trotskyist tradition and heading towards 
being a reformist party. And today are at best parroting around the same 
line as the various new leftists who were tailing either Mao, Che Chevara, 
or Hoxcha in Albania in the early 60ties, in hoping that they are going to 
with the Cuba question be the first on the new anti-imperialist bandwagon of 
the 90ties.

A fucking pipedream by the way because the conditions for the new left 
coming again have about a bigger chance then a snowball in hell. It was a 
movement which was based on specific conditions of post war economic boom, 
connected to the cold war and education explosion on the universities and 
the political forces which were dominant then.

Today the Stalinists are dead and the Social Democracy is on its way to 
committing political Harri Kari against its once historical base the workers 
movement. This leaves a situation for the Trotskyists to intervene in a 
situation which they never before been faced with. A vacuum of leadership in 
the workers movement which the last time was in fact perhaps in 1918 when 
the Social Democracy declared its bankruptcy before the world. The other 
historical event which could be seen to the equivalent is the recent demise 
of the Soviet Union.

At best Proyect you have the politics of the New Left Review to offer as the 
answer to our problems. What a fucking joke. The trotsyists have and arsenal 
of historic experience and political theory connected both to Stalinism and 
Social democracy, not to mention all of the twists and turns of many of the 
groups claiming to be Trotskyist. But the difference is that Trotskyism is 
not personalities, nor in fact size, you know how big you are shit. It is 
the program and tactics of world revolution and the historical experience of 
the Bolshevik Party in Russia and the history of the Left opposition and the 
documents of the Fourth International.

How many numbers of New Left review can you base your political future on 
Proyect? Oh this is so fucking funny... 

Yes, once again the so called "Trotskyists" have their ideological and 
political struggles. And they certainly will continue until we find some 
clarity in the formation of the future revolutionary Communist International...

But what has Proyect and his Ilk? For Proyect it appears that its the New 
Left Review and others perhaps the collected works of Stalin or Mao..Well 
time will tell Proyect. But one think for sure.. As a realist and a 
dialectical historical thinker I can honestly say THAT YOU ARE IN DEEP SHIT 
WITHOUT A PADDLE.. 

In fact any time you even try and get serious politically you are forced to 
draw out your SWP experience in order to say anything coherent..And you are 
talking about political sects and isolation of the various groupings that 
claim to be "Trotskyist". 

Proyect at best is and American centered new leftist who in order to give us 
a International flavor sometimes mentions struggles in the western 
hemisphere mainly Nicaragua and Cuba. Because the American new left is just 
that. And isolated little sect who can't even see the other side of the 
ocean never mind the rest od the world. Where is Proyect on the discussions 
on Europe or Africa or China. Yeah he is strutting around name dropping and 
talking about the next cyber seminar which will provide though for the New 
Left review crowd. So touching. In fact Proyect is so fucking isolated he 
did not even know what was going on in his own fucking city with the 
squatters and when Jerry informed him he immediately jumped on the wrong 
side of the barricades!

And he talks about the "Trotskyists"..

Sorry Proyect you desperate "sect" letters about the trotskyists shows that 
in many cases we are talking about both small groups and large groups with 
newspapers and books and members in a number of countries around the world. 
Many of them at least trying to intervene in the daily class struggles and 
trying to move things forward. Despite the political deviations and 
differences they are ten times if not a hundred times better then the aging 
new leftists who are waiting around at a revivalist meeting!

Hugh's recent observation about you Louis as you see the turf you once 
thought you owned here being invaded by more and more militants like Yoshie 
or Utica Rose and the new David over from his entry operation on the LP are 
a both enfreshing and dangerous turn for Proyect. Now Proyct you can either 
use the brain you have to make M-I and interesting place or you can take a 
dive like "Comrade Aldolfo" albeit into the deadend nostalgia of American 
new leftist isolationism which is far more *real* then anything you are 
talking about in regards to "Trotskyists" from various political trends on 
this list..

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki
--------------------------------------------------------
Bordigists in sheeps chothing. Part 3

At last Neil thinks that he has the "trotskyists" pinned down on the former 
degenerated Soviet Union and the deformed workers states in eastern Europe.

This time he takes Hugh to task over "nationalizations".

Neil sees no difference in the "nationalisations" in the Soviet Union nor in 
the former deformed workers staters of east Europe when compared with the 
"welfare" states like Sweden where the Social Democrats in their peaceful 
march towards "Socialism" nationalized parts of or all of certain industries 
in a country which has seen neither war or revolution.

Now even a state capitalist like Neil who openly admits his sympathies with 
the Bordigists, and sees trade unions as the enemy of the working class, and 
things like elections are just a bunch of bougeois hokus pocus wants to take 
us into some pretty far out generaizations in regards to "nationalisation" 
of the means of production.  Neil as always is driving with huge black 
patches over his eyes I will try and explain the differences between the 
former Soviet Union (a degenerated workers state)
the eastern European countries (deformed workers states) and Sweden a 
capitalist imperialist state (with a pro capitalist Social Democratic 
leadership.) to him and others who are coming on to the list.

The former Soviet Union which Neil paints up from its inception as state 
capitalist was and is the home of the first and only victorious October 
Revolution led by the Bolshevik Party under the leadership of Lenin and 
Trotsky among others. The nationaized property forms came out of a 
victorious revolution by the workers and peasants with guns in hand who not 
only took power but confiscated in the name of the Soviets and the Bolshevik 
party just about everything in the form of banks, large industries and the 
land. 

Naturally in backward Russia even with the leadership of the Bolshevik party 
when it was still in the hands of people like Lenin and Trotsky the 
nationalized property forms in the face of 4 years of imperialist war and 
the following imperialist encirclement of the new Russian republic, was 
hardly the first place that even Lenin or Trotsky would have liked to start 
the long march towards Communism via the transitional state of the then new 
Soviet republic. 

But that is what they had to work with and the ensuing NEP and five year 
plans must be seen in light of the realities that the young workers republic 
in "backward" Russia had to work with. But to come as the state capitalists 
do and write off the Soviet Union must be seen not only in their bankrupt 
economic critism's but in that it in no way has any concrete connection to 
the concrete realities that the Bolsheviks were faced with at the time. But 
is the ideas of a petty bougeois opposition trying to paste theory onto 
concrete revolutionary reality that the Bolsheviks were faced with.

In fact it is just a cheap shot in order to avoid the key political question 
of rolling up your sleevews after October 1917 and trying to extend October 
to one or more advanced industrial country as the Leninists try to do 
knowing that the economic pre-eqiisites in Russia were not very bright. But 
that was the revolution they had and what is it they were exactly surpose to 
do in the situation.Well they rolled up there sleeves and began to work 
under some rather extreme circumstances. One can say the right or wrongs 
about the NEP or this or that five year plan but the fundemental political 
and economical superstructure was the dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Now the post war deformed workers states in East Europe. If one were to 
believe Neil it was this fucking rosy "peaceful" march by the Red Army 
though the forest on a picnic Sunday outing and not a military occupation 
after four years of war that was never seen the like of in destruction 
before on the European continent. In fact reality was the fact that there 
was not to much industry left in tact at the end of the war! So the 
nationalization of industries that Neil talks about is a fucking ghost. 
Although the industries that were left were hardly nationalised but occupied 
and then physically moved inside the borders of the Soviet Union! 
Especaially in East Germany. So in fact the so called nationalization Neil 
is talking about is in fact the military victory and occupation of these 
states by the forward marching Red Army. Connected to and entrenched 
paranoid Stalinist bureaucracy in the Soviet Union who rather then build up 
a new Europe on the basis of proletarian power  and who saw all foreigners 
as the enemy imported and transplanted many of the organistional forms 
direct from the Soviet Union on to these occupied territories.  

It was the paranoid political superstructure of Stalinism that hardly was 
interested in "state capitalism" at all but the physical removal of 
political opponents and whole industries to the Soviet Union that was the 
living reality. Although in certain areas Checkoslavakian for example 
industries that were left in tact (arms industy)  developed because of the 
industrial skills of the checks rather then any kind of planned state 
capitalism by the leaders in the Kremlin. And even if it was! It was and is 
certainly defensible against *real* imperialism in regards to the overall 
situation at the end of the war..

But for our Borgidist in sheeps clothing none of the above makes any 
diffence. He lumps it all in to his state capitalist bag and marches off 
into the desert. 

However their is a difference beteen Neil and lets say the state caps that 
used this debate at the beginning of the war in order to desert the 
neccessity of defending the Soviet Union against imperialism despite the 
Stalinists in the war, like the Shactmanites who were a petty bougeois 
opposition in the then Trotskyist SWP of Cannon's.

For Neil is one would say a clone version of the Schactmanites who for 
entirely different reasons came about this (storm in a waterglass) debate on 
nationalisations and state capitalism to avoid the revolutionary 
responsibility of taking a fundemental defencist line on this question. Sort 
of like the "August 1918" demarcation line for the Schamanites and Neil who 
a number og generations later is using the "state capitalist" line in order 
to justify his ultra left line on just about everything which makes him 
become and unconcious ally of capitalism and the imperialist bougeisie!

What I mean is that the Schamanites would be saying today about the demise 
of the Soviet Union "good" as they wipe the sweat of fear" confronting their 
own boubeoisie's at home with the revoltionary line of defeatism. 

Whereas Neil is saying "good" now that we got the Soviet Union and East 
Europe out of the way it is time to take on the "reactionary" trade unions. 
Ultimitely to different lines of approach but in the end winding up on the 
wrong side of the barricades of the working class.

Finally the "nationalisations" in the "welfare" states like Sweden under the 
reformist Social democracy and Keynesian politics of the post war model- 
This is hardly the same as the nationalisations in the former Soviet union 
and Eastern European States described above. 

But in fact came on the advances of the Red Army and the possibility of the 
nationalised property forms of Stalinism spreading into the countries still 
controlled by imperialism and their armies. In fact keynesian politics was 
nothing else but a platform to fool the working class and at the same time 
use tax money to save what was left of capitilism and imperialism on this 
continent after the destruction of the war and the occupation of Europe by 
the Red Army and the nationalised property forms of the Stalinists who 
despite their counter-revolutionary political line countered with 
bureaucratically deformed nationalisations based on the Red Army and the 
Stalinist bureaucracy rather then any capitalist class...And in peaceful 
Sweden it was not even that but but the question of a historic compromise 
with Social Democracy in order to by time until the disastrous situation on 
the European continent would change in the favor of imperialism again.

However all of the nationalisations whether they were in the former Soviet 
Union based on October. If they were in the former Eastern European deformed 
workers states because of the military occupation of the Red Army. Or the 
nationalisations here in Sweden which came under more peaceful forms.. 

All of them for Communists are DEFENSIBLE as a higher forms of organisation 
form in the interests of the proletariat!Despite there being 
bureaucratically deformed in the former degenerated and deformed workers 
states they were one of the pillars which stopped the Stalinists from 
handing it over to the imperialists in the 40ties instead of now in the 
80ties. And in the capitalist-imperialist Sweden they were reforms that the 
workers understood were going in their direction and not the otherway.

Naturally this does not mean that there is a Stalinist stages of 
bureaucratic degenerations and deformations are neccessary as a rule on the 
wat to Communism. Exactly the opposite they are and were road blocks 
endangering the great gains made by October!

Now a question to our state capitalists who have for weeks now been going on 
with this storm in a water glass debate. Why is it that it is just those 
nationalisation forms that you critisize the "Trotskyists" for defending 
against imperialism just those things that the real imperialists are going 
after in not only in the former degenerated and deformed workers states, but 
in imperialist Sweden is just those type of nationalised property forms? 
Gulp Gulp guys!

Can you deny that their is a difference? 

Why is it exactly these forms that the restorationists are attacking all 
along the line? I mean you been running around here for weeks telling us it 
is all the same shit. Well, obviously the "real" capitalists and 
imperialists just don't agree with the state capitalist of the "left" on M-I 
as elsewhere. 

Because it it just these nationalized property forms that they are taking 
back all across the line....

Now this must say something even to the brightest state cap "leftist" about 
the rotten political line they have been hawking for one reason or another 
since the late 30ties! Sorry if I find this stuff hard to believe. But then 
again I believe that Trotsky and Cannon for example were fundementally right 
about the state capitalists.

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki
-------------------------------------------------------
The Ireland debate...

The debate between Martin and Gary shows quite clearly the dilema of the so 
called left on Ireland. If Martin's latest could be classified as a 
sickening apologogy from the left of tailing Blair and his style of 
reformism without a gun, all for the sake of "unity" of the Irish working 
class and backhandedly arguing some kind of perspective of a peaceful road 
to socialism over the Irish working class being united under the British flag.

Then Gary's Mao-Stalinist approach of uncritical support for the stage 
theory, popular front politics of the IRA with a gun is just as sickening. 
In fact the only real difference between the two combatants is which wing of 
reformism/popular frontism one capitulates too..

Quite funny and quite tragic to watch on this list. Niether of these 
"leftists" have a program or tactics which can realize the *revolutionary* 
unification of not only the Irish working class, but the British working 
class to fight for power, including the right of and Irish workers republic 
in a federation of Socialist states in the Britsh isles.

Both capitulate in one form of another to either the English imperialists in 
the form of Martin's left wing tailing of Blairs "new" labor. Or Gary who 
capitulates to Irish petty bougeois nationalism and popular front politics 
with a gun.

Niether want to fight for independent proletarian class struggle for power. 
But all kinds of opportunist suicidal combinations that will lead the 
working class down another dead end.

And Gary's views on the "national" question are just and old hashed up 
version of Stalinist politics without claiming the source of his bankrupt line.

So despite Gary's obvious Irish "I don't give a bloody fuck" temper coming 
out again he nor Martin can show the way forward out of the dead end that 
all these rounds of peace deal negoiations on the one hand and protracted 
city guerrilla warfare on the other, "reformism with a gun", which always in 
the final analisis mean stabbing the working class in the back, can show the 
way out.

Only a Bolshevik/Leninist Trotskyist Vanguard Party with a program like the 
International Communist League has for Ireland including the "National" question
will be able to intervene and change the course of the dead end left who 
time and again! either wants to make a deal with British Imperialism or some 
popular front-
petty bougeois nationalist combinationism connected to a stage theory of 
revolution.

So despite the hard words between Martin and Gary they in fact are united. 
The only difference being that Martin wants to tail Blair's reformist/pro 
imperialist line and Gary wants to tail a petty bougeois nationalist/popular 
front/reformist combination..

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki      
--------------------------------------------------------
Hilliers examples!

Hillier's examples Unionist violence against Chatholic areas in Ireland 
prove nothing! In fact it just shows one side, in this case the unionist, 
terror attacks against Chatholic areas. What it does show also is Hillier's 
inability to find a way out of this communal bloodbath..His only line 
is...See the fucking orange unionists reactionary para-military wackos are 
killing innocent people, thus it is right and just to tail the IRA who want 
to reverse the forms of oppression, rather then remove them.

It also gives Hillier a cover for his rotten Stalinist stage theory of 
revolution and supporting the IRA and its petty bougeois nationalist pick up 
the gun, pro Chatolic church retoric.

And in fact Martin is right, in one sense, these city guerrillas can not win 
militarily and at best (politically) want to give power to the Irish 
Catholic bougeoisie and the reactionary Chatholic church in a little 
chatolic statlet in Northern Ireland.

We on the other hand could call for workers,trade union, militias to defend 
these areas from all forms of sectarian terror....This also goes for the 
protestant side of the fence, linked to a program to overthrow the present 
government and build a United Irish Workers Republic in a Federation of 
Socialist states in the British Isles for example.

Hillier and his cronies at best are tailing the IRA and the fucking 
Chatholic Church.
And quietly saying that it is OK for the IRA to go into protestant 
neigborhoods and do the same thing that the Unionists are doing in Chatholic 
neigborhoods.

Warm regards
Bob Malecki
--------------------------------------------------------
Check Out My HomePage where you can,

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

And Now the International Communist League Page!

Or Get The Latest Issue of,

COCKROACH, a zine for poor and working-class people

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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005