File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9710, message 76


Date: Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:44:24 +0000
From: vladimir bilenkin <achekhov-AT-unity.ncsu.edu>
Subject: M-G: On VOODOO RHETORICS,CUBA, and other matters (Pt. 1)


[I want to apologize for unintentionally misspelling Adolfo Olaechea's
last name in
my previous post]. 

The last of Olaechea's revelations makes me think that the rank of our
voodoo dialectician-in-charge and at-large, that I was about to award
him, would be clearly undeserved and even unfair to a number of genuine
voodooists on this list.  I thereby demote Olaechea to our voodoo
rhetorician-in-charge and at-large. Let us now briefly
examine this remarkable example of the rhetoric of the voodoo left
dogmatism behind which there lingers on an ideology of the philistine
petty-bourgeois nationalism.  

Olaechea writes: 

<<The best proof that what Olaechea writes could not have been written
by a
Trotskyst, is precisely that the Trotkyst Bilenkin (and that Bilenkin is
a
Trotskyst we have ample proof in case his memory is shortchanging him)
is so
dead against his version of history in relation to the true character of
the
Cuban regime.>>

A purely rhetorical construction based on a circular logic with a rather
silly
proposition that since "we (sic!) have ample proof that Bilenkin is a
Trotskyist"
then Olaechea could not have written anything that could have written by
a trotskyist!  Everything that follows is but the extended version of
this spectacular construction.  

<<That Bilenkin takes this position - like Trotskysts always do in
opposition
to the proletariat - is obviously for the most simple and telling of
reasons:>>

I categorically refuse to see Olaechea as a synechdochy for "the
proletariat"
in general and the Cuban proletariat in particular. If any of the good
members
of this list can provide me with any evidence to the contrary I will be
eager to
consider it and, if convinced, to bring my sincere apologies to
Olaechea.

<<Because it relates to true facts and exposes these true facts for
everyone
to see.  As these facts run contrary to the interests of the
social-fascist
bourgeois scholars of revisionism who seek to delude the masses into
supporting reactionaries by dressing them up as "the people's friends",
and
moreover, such facts expose these very scholars practical collaboration
with
imperialism, is it at all surprising then that Bilenkin wants to add his
penny's worth to this mistification?.>>

Of course it's not surprising.  What is surprising is how well the
contemporary
epigoni of Vyshinsky have been able to preserve his style (and style
only) while
completely lacking his undeniable logical skills in manupulating FALSE
FACTS. The 
"ample proof" of this aspect of Stalinist degradation that explains why
I had to 
deny Olaechea even the rank of the voodoo logician will be demonstrated
below.


<<As to Bilenkin's silly and wooden "dialectics", sufficient to say that
contradictions among fascists and counter-revolutionaries are not
precluded,
neither that such contradictions can become very acute under certain
circunstances. It is obvious that such inter-bourgeois contradictions
can
also lead to wars, and in fact they inevitably lead to wars when all
other
methods to resolve them fail, as history has proven many a time.>> 

Let us ponder on this theoretical semblance. My "wooden" dialectics as
well as my knowledge of history suggest that contradictions between
"fascists and counter-revolutionaries" are of a different nature than
inter-bourgeois contradictions (both within one country and
internationally), though not unconnected with them. The former can be
born only out of the dynamic of class struggle against the advent of the
revolutionatry proletariat. The latter exist always, i.e. even when the
class struggle is in its latent phase. Olaechea's voodoo rhetoric is
intended to obfuscate the difference that in certain circumstances can
become crucial for proletarian politics.  For instance, we can say that
under no conditions the contradictions of the former type can lead to a
civil war but only to a putsch.  But a marxist politician worthy of this
name would have to go far deeper in examining these two types of
contradictions in all their concrete manifestations.  He will not be
deceived by the vodoo dialectics of Olaechea-Manuilsky since he has
learned something from history and is manly enough not to hide from this
experience.  He knows that counter-revolutionary forces and even the
fascist ones are not homogeneous substances of the Stalinist metaphysics
but the political representations of heterogeneous social layers and
groups with different and even contradictory interests. He finds in this
heterogeneity of and contradictions between the reactionary forces,
masked and subdued on a level of political representation by a "leader"
or "leadership,"  a revolutionary chance for the proletariat.  This is
what "wooden" dialecticians think
about when they come across the voodoo dialectics of Adolfo's type.

<<In today's world, US imperialism is the leader of the new fascism, but
even
then, US imperialism - as all imperialist and fascist powers do -
strives to
impose its domination over all other powers, including also those who
are
also equally bitter enemies of the revolutionary proletariat.>>

A good example of voodoo logic: since all of the above is true, Castro's
Cuba is a "bitter enemy of the revolutionary proletariat."  Who can
notice that under the spell of this verbal black magic Olaechea smuggles
in a repudiation of the most fundamental 
epistemological insight of historical materialism, the primacy of class
struggle for our understanding of historical process.  What Olaechea
asserts is that when confronted by the "revolutionary proletariat" the
exploiting classes of imperialist and "all other powers" DO NOT unite
against their common class enemy but rather slash one another's throats
and commit their own class suicide!  Olaechea's thesis then goes against
the very heart of proletarian politics and the entire historical
experience of socialist movement.  Bravo, VOODOO PROFESSOR!  What
professional propagandist for the bourgeoisie could do a better job! 
But Olaechea is not a propagandist for the bourgeoisie.  He is a
revolutionary in a tradition of the Left dogmatism, more exactly, of its
degenerated voodoo stage. But the class base of his revisionism remains
the same.  Which class?  To answer this question we have ask: To What
class social reality tends to appear as one determined by "big guys" and
who tends to explain its own misfortunes and the motion of history by
them and their inter-national competition rather than by the often
invisible struggle between classes?  The answer is: petty bourgeoisie,
and in Olaechea's case,  the doubly fucked-up peripheral, neo-colonial
petty bourgeoisie.  But this is trivial and has only a secondary
interest for me.  Much more important is Olaechea's recurrent and purely
rhetorical reference to "the revolutionary proletariat" who leads a
ghostly existence in the insides of our ventriloquist.  I'll return to
this detail later.

<<A case in point is that of the Saddam Hussein regime, which no one can
deny
it is indeed a fascist style regime. The fascism of a third world
bureacratic capitalist regime, the fascism of a weak nation.  

No one can deny either that the US imperialists - who are top dog in the
imperialist pile -  would very much like to annex Irak and to rid the
international scene of the troublesome Hussein who is always causing
them
trouble in its regional power plans.>>

Let me be the only one who does not agree with Olaechea's and President
Bush's
designation of Saddam and his regime as fascist.  Saddam is the "mother"
of all petty and not-so-petty Asiatic tyrants.  But he is not a
"fascist" unless Marxist science is reduced to voodoo rhetoric.  But the
above also shows Olaechea's appalling ignorance of "true facts" about
US-Iraq relations.  Who can seriously talk  about international
politics, let alone, Marxist international politics with some one who
believes that US "would very much like to annex Irak and to rid the
international scene of the troublesome Hussein who is always causing
them
trouble in its regional power plans"?  But this is also secondary since
Olaechea draws his voodoo analogies to convince us that there is no
essential difference between the US-Iraq and US-Cuba contradictions. 
Let us play his game for a moment and ask Olaechea: What exactly are the
"troubles" that Castro causes in US regional power plans?

<<Therefore, it does not follow that communists should support Miami
shopkeepers - only Trotskysts, who, being political eunuchs (i.e.
"revolutionaries" without a revolutionary apparatus to call their own)
can
think in this barren fashion and truly undialectical fashion.>>

Notice how subtle is this transition to "therefore" from Saddam to Miami
shopkeepers.
Yet the question remains: ON WHOSE SIDE WILL ADOLFO OLAECHEA BE WHEN THE
MIAMI SHOPKEEPERS AND CUBAN WORKERS FACE EACH OTHER IN THE SECOND BAY OF
PIGS? Unless Olaechea's "dialectics" is voodoo Hegelian, he will have to
decide not between the "revolutionary proletariat" of the Holy Spirit
and the Sons of Darkness in Havana but between the corporeal toilers of
Cuba and their bloodthirsty class enemy.  Do you  pledge the
unconditional defense of Cuba in case of a military intervention against
it, Adolfo?  This is a straight question.  I expect a straight answer. 

Olaechea continues:

<<People like this can never see beyond the bourgeois horizon, always
assuming
that in all circusnstances, one has to trail either one or the other
reactionary regime, one or the other reactionary party of the double
faced
bourgeosie, one or the othet reactionary ideology, etc.  No sense
whatever
of proletarian class political independence.  

No sense at all of the most basic tenet of the Communist Manifesto:

"Communists stand as a separate party oppossed to all other parties">>

Now we have an example of the voodoo citation strategy.  Let us again
play the opponent's game for a moment.  I quote:

"The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other 
working-class parties.  
 
They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat
as a whole.  
 
They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to
shape and mold the proletarian movement.  
 
The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by
this only.... 
  
 The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other 
proletarian parties...." 

Now what can we say about Olaechea's own "sense of the most basic tenet
of the Communist Manifesto?"

It is also clear that Olaechea does not know the difference between
ideology and politics, between the political regime and the social
order.  He uses Marxis jargon but thinks in the categories of bourgeois
political science. Let me agree for the sake of my argument that
Castro's regime is fascist.  What then about the fundamental social
arrangements of Cuban society that determine the day-to-day existence of
10 million people?  What if Cuban workers prefer them to those that will
be established by the Miami shopkeepers should they overthrow fascist
Castroites?  Is this consideration unimportant for some one with a
"sense of the Communist Manifesto?"


<<In the logic of the social-democrat revisionist Bilenkin, you must
always
lend support to Labour, or otherwise you are actually supporting the
Tories,
and it does not occur to him that "Labour" can in fact turn into the
most
reactionary party, making the tories look progressive in comparison.  Do
we
proletarians alwyas have to trail behind either one or the other
"carrion
crows perched atop the murrained cattle" trying to sell either to the
masses
as their "friend" in counter-position to the other?   It does not occur
to
the "dialectician" in Bilenkin that in fact BOTH are the people's
deadliest
enemies, and that the obligation of the communists is to expose this
fact to
the masses, even when - in particular concrete conditions - supporting
either of them, "like the rope supports the hanged man". 

No.  Bilenkin, unlike Lenin, is for the preservation of illusions,
rather
than for casting these illusions away!  What is new?>>

In the voodoo logic of Olaechea, you must not support anyone but the
communist party of outer space and the "revolutionary proletariat" of
the Holy Spirit.  This voodoo illusionist has no illusions, you see.  He
wants to call things by their true names, the beacon of the proletarian
spirit he is.  But in reality, he again smuggles in the most hackneyed
left infantilism that could be explained by naivete and zealotry 80
years ago but not today, not today.  Here is what Lenin, whom Olaechea
makes, after the manner of his "the revolutionary proletariat," into a
ghostly emanation of his ventriloquist excercises had to say on these
matter:

<<If we are the party of the revolutionary CLASS, and not merely a
revolutionary group, and if we want the MASSES to follow us (and unless
we achieve that, we stand the risk of remaining mere windbags), we must,
first, help Henderson or Snowden to beat Lloyd George and Churchill (or
rather, compel the former to beat the latter, because the former are
AFRAID OF THEIR VICTORY); second, we must help the majority of the
working class to be convinced by their own experience that we are right,
i.e., that the Hendersons and Snowdens are absolutely good for nothing,
that they are petty-bourgeois and treacherous by nature, and that their
bancrupcy is inevitable; third, we must bring nearer the moment when, ON
THE BASIS, of the disappointment of most of the workers in the
Hendersons, it will be possible, with serious chances of success, to
overthrow the government of the Hendersons at once; because if the most
astute and solid Lloyd George, that big, not petty, bourgeois, is
displaying consternation and is more and more weakening himself (and the
bourgeoisie as a whole) by his "friction" with Churchill today and with
Asquith tomorrow, how much greater will be the consternation of a
Henderson government!>>

Now this is some sense of the "fundamental tenet of the Communist
Manifesto"!  And this sense is light years apart from that of Olaechea,
the fact that by now must be obvious to every one.  Notice, Lenin does
not call to "chose" between the two parties or to piss on both and march
forward with the communist party of outer space ahead of the
revolutionary proletariat of the Holy Spirit.  Nothing of this kind,
i.e. of the "true Leninist" Olaechea kind.  Lenin calls the "party of
the revolutionary class" to "compel" Labor to beat the Tories!  Lenin
calls "windbags" those who think that class struggle is about calling
Labor "fascists" rather than compelling Labor to win!  I don't want to
go further.  One can talk for hours about this paragraph-long
masterpiece of Marxist politics.  But even a glance at it makes clear
that there is nothing in common between real Lenin and that of the
voodoo Leninists.

(to be continued)

Vladimir Bilenkin


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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005