Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 01:43:26 -0500
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: M-G: COCKROACH! #92 ( "Bourgeois Freedoms") 


COCKROACH! #92

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. To the Red Cabbage list...

2. M-I: "Bourgeois Freedoms" 

3.  To Malecki and Sparrow

--------------------------------------------------
To the Red Cabbage list

>To Mr Robert Malecki:
>I just got on this mailing list, and after a few days I have realized that
>many of the people who are on it do not like you or your emailed messages.
>I, of course, have nothing against you, but I would like to know a little
>more of what this is all about. Being the leader of the NG2000, many people
>have asked me about my view, but I really don't know anything about this. So
>I decided to go right to the source, you, and hear you defend yourself
>against these allegations.
>
>A person emailed me yesterday and complained about getting your emails. This
>is my answer to him:
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
>>ok...... I'll see what I can do. But why do you think Robert Malecki isn't
>serious??
>>
>>SatZ
>
>This was his answer back to me:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>I am not a member of that list. I don't know who is re-sending me that staff.
>>I was a member of some lists but I left because of Malecki. This is a guy that
>>could send HUNDREDS of e-mails and he likes to abuse people with the worst
>>insults.
>>
>>Many people complained about him.
>>Even the Lcmmmmmcri, who constantly defended him against many attacks, decided
>>to break with him. I  disagree with this group, but at least they are serious
>>people. I have their statement in my archives.
>>
>>James
>>
>>Ps.- I will not answer any more e-mails from this list.
>>Please don't send more messages to this e-mail.
>
Dear Satz,

Thank you for the letter and going to the source. Now naturally I would 
never send any E-mail to people who do not want to receive it. My 
understanding is that the red cabbage list was started by "Comrade Roger"  
"Ez1H-AT-aol.com" and he posts regularly uppdates of people either wanting to 
get on the list or off the list.

Now naturally if anybody does not want to receive mail from one particular 
political opponent then he or she should either delete the message or 
request to leave the list. Personally I do not think that whining or using 
organizational maneuvers because you do not like the political views of a 
particular person in order to sabotage a list that Comrade Roger started in 
order to discuss questions facing poor and working class people Internationally.

It is true that the Lcmcri and Malecki and his newspaper "Cockroach" have 
had some rather sharp exchanges on a number of questions. But it is 
certainly not true either in the case of the Lcmcri or Malecki that we on 
principle would defend each others right to publish and write anything that 
we think important to the discussion on the "red cabbage" list or any other 
list for that matter. Both the Lcmcri and Malecki have a record of defending 
people's rights to have there say (naturally this right is not extended to 
fascists). 

Our friend who has complained to you is using the classical Stalinist method 
of trying to use organizational maneuvers in order to sabotage both the "red 
cabbage" list and the dire necessity to discuss very serious questions which 
working class people Internationally are faced with. Or someone has 
mistakenly put him on a list which he quite obviously does not want to be a 
part of. However it is not my responsibility in the creation of the list or 
keeping up who is on the list and who is not.

In no way have I intentionally posted anything to this person personally but 
to a list of addresses which only yesterday was revised by the originator of 
the list in his "red cabbage" message four.

My sincere intention is naturally to argue for the politics that I think is 
necessary in the struggle to reforge the Fourth International of Trotsky 
which over the years was destroyed by Pabloite liquidationism.

As to how the list was created I am afraid that you must contact red cabbage 
and "Comrade Roger" who is responsible for who is on the list and who is not 
on the list. I certainly defend his attempts to get a discussion going with 
people all over the world and at the same time say that anybody who does not 
want to be on the list contact Comrade Roger and I am quite sure he or she 
will be removed immediately and will never be bothered again with Emails 
either from me or anybody else.

Now naturally there is another alternative and that is that Comrade Roger 
ban me from sending material to the list I will naturally comply to this. 
However I will also attack any attempts to gag any person (including myself) 
who use these kinds of organizational methods to stop the discussions and 
sabotage the list. Whoever they may be. Because one of the fundamental 
principals of Trotskyism is the right to have full freedom of views and 
express them in the workers movement and naturally on any list created for 
discussing these kinds of questions.And I warn anyone from taking the path 
of exclusion under the guise of personal attacks and organizational 
maneuvering rather then any kind of political line.

For any further information about "Malecki" I suggest that you go to my home 
page
at the address below. There is certainly quite a bit of information about 
Malecki in the book there for example called "Ha Ha Ha McNamara, Vietnam My 
Bellybutton is my Cristalball"..One could say it is a quite honest attempt 
at a biography by Malecki and his rather insignificant life so far..

As the seriousness of this letter and the charges made against me are quite 
grave I am sending this your letter and my response in its entirety to the 
entire updated "red cabbage" list. I also intend to put this stuff in a 
future issue of "Cockroach" my BI-weekly Zine for poor and working class 
people on the Internet.

Warm Regards
Bob Malecki
-------------------------------------------------------
M-I: "Bourgeois Freedoms" 

This is a reply to part 1 and 2 of Andy's defense of free speech for fascists. 

To use Marx in this discussion to defend your line of free speech for 
fascists is just ridiculous! In fact one would believe that if Marx said 
this or that then this makes it contemporary law in regards to modern day 
capitalist/imperialist society. Marx when read must be taken in regards to 
the society and historical context he and Engels were living in. 

Thus the Communist Manifesto probably sounded like a document coming from 
and intelligent wacko from mars to the then  philosophical and mystical 
world  that dominated the professors and medieval institutions of feudal 
society. However when Marx was arguing his line of free speech it certainly 
was in the context of defense of the coming bogeys revolutions which would 
give rise to the industrial proletariat and upfill Marx's theses on the 
possibilities of implementing the Communist manifesto.

However I wonder if Andy sees any development on this front since Marx's 
time. Because I certainly do. In fact the whole discussion of the vanguard 
party for example argued for by Lenin and connected to the dictatorship of 
the Proletariat as a transitional regime from capitalist/imperialist society 
"the highest stage of development" of bogeys society which unfortunately 
Marx was not around to see and give his views on.. 

Thus the dictatorship of the proletariat implemented by Lenin and the 
Bolsheviks is in a sense the positive anti thesis of the dictatorship of 
finance capital in its final stages of decay which was exemplified by the 
Nazi party coming to power in Germany in the thirties as the negative 
example in the lack of a Leninist Party that could have turned the tide to 
Proletarian victory.

So naturally when looking at the real situation from a Leninist point of 
view decaying capitalist/imperialism which reached its highest stage already 
in Lenin's time and not in Marx's time showed quite clearly that there was 
no way out. It is either Communism in the form of the dictatorship of the 
Proletariat in a desperate struggle for power or the dictatorship of finance 
capital in the form of fascism! There is no other way.

I would also like to throw back in your face the ideas that the working has 
no stake in fighting the fascists as soon as they raise there heads. But 
also the illusions you have in "bourgeois" democracy. Trotsky wrote on the 
subject in a long article called "Whats
 Next? the following;

" There are no 'class distinctions' between democracy and Fascism. Obviously 
this must mean that democracy as well as Fascism is bogeys in character. we 
guessed as much even prior to January, 1932. The ruling class, however, does 
not inhabit in a vacuum. It stands in definite relations to other classes. 
In a developed capitalist society, during a 'democratic regime' the 
bourgeoisie leans for support primarily upon the working classes which are 
held in check by the reformists. In its most finished form, this system 
finds its expression ion England during the administration f the Labor 
government as well as during that of the Conservatives. In a fascist regime, 
at least during its first phase, capital leans on the petty bourgeoisie 
which destroys the organizations of the proletariat. Italy for instance! Is 
there a difference in the 'class content' of these two regimes? If the 
question is posed only as regards the ruling class, then there is no 
difference. If one takes into account the position and the inter-relations 
of all classes, from the angle of the proletariat then the difference is 
enormous." 

So still your arguments are more of a bogeys lawyer rather then any kind of 
serious Marxist position. As if Revolutionary Marxism stopped when Marx and 
Engels died. Quite the opposite Lenin just as Trotsky carried on his work 
and developed it in the context of modern capitalist/imperialist society in 
decay and at a dead end with only one way out. There own dictatorship in the 
form of Nazis to destroy the proletariat and its organizations and to bring 
nationalist and chauvinist 
middle age philosophy to white heat in a new round of slaughter of poor and 
working class people around the world to redevide the world or on the other 
hand the successful socialist revolutions in a number of key countries 
setting up the dictatorship of the proletariat..

You arguments might have gone over well in lets say 18teenth century 
Victorian England or at best reformism in its progressive stage in winning 
the right to vote for example however to come with this kind of garbage 
today is in fact turning Marxism in to some sort of archeological relic to 
be dusted off in order to defend free speech to the Nazi's.

Once again I warn you Andy. You are a very pleasant and polite guy. But 
bring the Nazi's in here and you cross the class line. And I will do 
everything in my power to take you and Jefferson Village down the drain...

Because Communists realize that fascism is not just a word for debating what 
Marx said during the rise of bourgeois revolutions and society. The Nazi's 
are a program of action in a decadent decaying capitalist/imperialist 
society. It is either the dictatorship of the proletariat or the 
dictatorship of the finance capital in the form of the Nazi's and backed up 
by the armies of petty bourgeoisie and the money of the big bourgeoisie. It 
is the petty bogeys and lumpen elements turned up to white heat
by the Nazi's with a program to destroy all workers organizations and 
foremost all gains made by the workers movement over the years. 

The lessons of world war 2 and the millions who died in the last imperialist 
major imperialist conflict show that Nazism where ever it raises its head 
should have a foot to firmly stamp on it and wipe it out. Naturally there 
are other tactics as well and Trotsky's struggle against Fascism in Germany 
and both the political line of the Social Democracy and the Stalinists are 
just some of the tactical considerations necessary in order to smash fascism 
but also the system that gives birth to it. To say that one should ignore 
the lumpen and petty bourgeois rabble who are the street spokesman of the 
Nazis and concentrate on the big time guys is both wrong and suicidal. In 
fact fascism can only be successful when it can turn these elements into and 
active army of brown shirts and thus in this stage of the game the rise of 
these organizations on the streets is the coming of the fucking brown shirts 
that would put every class conscious worker and communist against the 
nearest wall when coming to power. To not stop them from raising there heads 
is really like playing Russian roulette with six bullets in the chamber!

Reply to Part 2 of Andy's stuff.

In regard to your "Marxist" arguments see above. However you go in to some 
tactical problems confronted with by communists in regards to senate 
hearings or bourgeois parliamentary institutions. This is a tactical and 
principled question and obviously communists would not try and act like the 
best defenders of bourgeois institutions although we would defend them by 
independent mobilization of the proletariat if necessary. But the point is 
not only would we use these kinds of hearings and institutions to deny any 
rights to fascists in regards to any rights other then aquainting there 
heads with the pavement. we would also use these hearings and institutions 
as a tribune to oppose fascism and at the same time point out that it is the 
very same system in decay which gives rise to the fascists as the final 
bloody solution of dictatorship of a system in crisis countering that with 
the necessity of implementing the dictatorship of the proletariat as the 
only real way to combat fascism ...

Finally the whole political thrust of your argument is at best and argument 
that "Marxists" should be the best fighters for consistent bourgeois 
democracy and certainly I am not against defending bourgeois democratic 
freedoms. But the Nazi's are not part of any kind of bourgeois democracy but 
in fact the dictatorship of finance capital/imperialism. There program is to 
exterminate bourgeois democracy but FOREMOST ANY AND ALL EXPRESSION OF 
WORKERS PROLETARIAN DEMOCRACY AND ITS MASS ORGANIZATIONS AND PARTIES and 
turn the clock back on the skulls of millions. Communist on the other hand 
see in the dictatorship of the Proletariat the necessary transitional 
instrument to turn the clock forward and in the final analysis try to 
implement the great goals embodied in Marx's Communist Manifesto..

So your arguments in fact are arguments of either turning the clock 
backwards or standing still but hardly a way forward..And finally as one 
Jewish lady on Swedish TV recently said. "Never again!" should the Nazi's be 
given a chance and although not a Marxist  nor even a worker But I am on her 
side because she gives a quite descriptive presentation of how best to put a 
bullet right between a Nazis eyes and if you put yourself on the other side 
of the barricades with the Nazi's I am gonna try to take you down by any 
means necessary. 

Bob Malecki 
-------------------------------------------------------
 To Malecki and Sparrow

Andy writes;

>Robert, 
>
>Please read my arguments carefully. Never did I say we should not fight
>the fascists. I clearly said that we should stop the fascists from taking
>power of the state, that we should stop them from pushing over gravestones
>in Jewish cemeteries, and so on. I believed that the second World War,
>where we killed millions of fascists, was a just war. I never advocated
>the right of fascists to rule over us, I never advocated that we don't use
>violence against fascism, just as I do not affirm the right of the
>bourgeoisie to rule over us; I leave the question of violence against the
>bourgeoisie open. So let's be clear about what it is I am arguing.

Andy the second world war was not just another war! In fact Trotsky was 
already saying in 1932 when the COMINTERN*s politics led to the Nazi's 
coming to power it is just at matter of time and the rearming of Germany. It 
also was in fact fundamentally an imperialist war to redevide the pie. 
However with the existence of the Soviet Union despite the Stalinists also a 
war where the International Proletariat and its vanguard had the duty of 
defending the gains of October despite the counter-revolutionary leadership 
of the Stalinists who's politics played a key role
in first handing over Germany to the Nazi's...This is also tied into the 
present debate
you are having with the state capitalists because in fact it was just under 
the pressure of imperialist war and the Trotskyist position of defending the 
gains of the October revolution despite the Stalinists that people like Max 
Schactman deserted Trotskyism for the state capitalist theory. It was not 
just a debate like you are having with the clones of the Schactmanites today 
on M-I. but real pressure of imperialist war! The petty bourgeois 
intellectual environment turned the "state capitalist" debate into the big 
act in order not to take there Revolutionary Internationalist and Trotskyist 
position on this question...
>
>Defending the freedom of individuals to meet, organize, write and talk and
>think is not a defense of individuals to meet and organize a militia,
>acquire a cache of weapons, and march on the political institutions of the
>people. I believe that a democracy has a right to prevent groups from
>developing militias and attempting to overthrow government. For example, I
>support the banning of militias, because I believe the existence of
>private armies is a threat to political freedom. However I would not
>prevent an individual from writing a book advocating that we permit the
>organizing of militias and the overthrowing of democratic government. The
>argument here is over freedom to think, speak, and print--not the freedom
>to murder and vandalize.

The above is also garbage Andy. One of the central tasks of Communist is to 
defend workers democracy and in fact struggle for the freest possible debate 
in the workers movement in regards to tasks and perspectives!  (this by the 
way is quite funny hearing by the way after all the spectacular 
organizational maneuvers by various "leftists" at Jefferson village to do 
exactly the opposite) However Communist are also for the tactic of preparing 
the workers to fight for power. Thus in every strike the class line is drawn 
in the picket line, sitdown strikes, factory  occupations, workers militias 
and finally a desperate struggle for power. In fact your argument above 
could be made by any bourgeois liberal. And Communists by the way are the 
best defenders for the right to bare arms!  But we do not extent this right 
to the Nazis anywhere or ever. They are the deadly enemy of the Proletariat. 
But after taking power we would certainly give the right to these freedoms 
both for workers parties and even to bourgeois components as long as their 
activities in action counter-revolutionary. However in this case it does to 
apply to the Nazis either.
>
>One of the main arguments in my post was that the different freedoms have
>different histories. A freedom to organize a militia is a separate
>question from to the freedom to organize a political organization. Under
>Malecki's monolithic construction of bourgeoisie right, every freedom that
>exists under bourgeoisie society is subject to restriction under
>proletarian rule. What Malecki does in this argument is to destroy any
>basis for preserving freedoms. This is precisely what I am arguing
>against.

The only thing you are really interested in is preserving bourgeois 
freedoms. Communists defend bourgeois freedoms in the sense that it makes it 
far easier to work in lets say a bourgeois democracy for its overthrow. 
However we do not have any illusions that bourgeois democracy is something 
that exists in a vacuum and is determined by quite a number of things and 
that these bourgeois freedoms can quickly be turned into Marshal law by the 
class enemy when push comes to shove. Just take a look at "free speech" for 
example during the height of the anti war movement in the United States. It 
was usually associated with getting a police club right on top of your head. 
In other cases the government went much further for example the panthers and 
people like Geronimo Pratt and Jamal can certainly tell how much the great 
American system of freedoms has worked for them..

I would also like to reply to Zeynep here. Because she brings up "bourgeois 
freedoms in countries like Turkey that are fine on paper but....Bourgeois 
freedom in a class sense is the freedom to be a SLAVE under the present 
Imperialist system and nothing else. Naturally we defend the freedoms fought 
for and won under the decades that have past but at the same time have no 
illusions that these freedoms are some how permanent in regards to a system 
which is International and based on the repression of freedom and slavery 
for millions upon million of poor and working class people. In the advanced 
industrial countries we seem to thing that these freedoms are some sort of 
absolute whereas this is just ridiculous when looking at the system and the 
blood that has been spilled just to trounce on exactly these kinds of rights 
usually in the interests of the imperialist turning a buck. Communist are 
for the overthrow of bourgeois society and in fact in the long run bourgeois 
rights and replacing them with first proletarian democracy under the 
dictatorship of the Proletariat and further on Communism and its principles.

However I think that one of the problems in third world countries is just 
the problem of "bourgeois democratic rights". Unfortunately many of the left 
raise this in the concept of the Stalinist stage theory of revolution which 
ties defense and struggle for these rights to rotten popular front politics. 
I think that Communists in these countries with half military regimes and 
dictatorships must have the line of independently struggling for 
implementing full "bourgeois" rights to everyone except the fascists. They 
could even demonstrate and take actions together with other bourgeois 
formations naturally that this implies that we are fight only in the 
interests of the Proletariat and its organizations and we march separately 
but at times strike together.

However once again this does not imply fascist organizations because of my 
earlier arguments..

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!
Just push on the "Spartacist" Button.

Or Get The Latest Issue of,

COCKROACH, a zine for poor and working-class people.

NEW! "RADIO TIME"  In cooperation with Straitfacts, Bob
Malecki will be giving occasional reports to Straitfacts
Radio audiences in the United States. Text for these
reports now on line. 

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

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




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