Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 20:54:24 +0100 (MET)
From: Rolf Martens <rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>
Subject: Re: M-G: BEAT BACK THE COUNTEREVOLUTIONARY SABOTEUR AND FBI SPAMMMERS


Gershom wrote, on 15.12 -

and some brief replies (he's quoting me):

>>1) In their conflict with Stalin's group in the 1920s, the Trotskyists
>>were in the wrong, standing for a bourgeois line. Thus they also gave
>>an excuse for certain reactionary actions by Stalin etc later,
>>wrongful suppressions purportedly directed against "Trotskyism",
>>which the messes quite rightly were against.
>
>I'm not sure what you're saying here? Do you mean to say that it's the
>fault of the Trotskyists that *Stalin* was a repressive dictator?

Stalin was only in part (the lesser part) that. And yes, precisely
the Trots in part were to blame for that. These "critics" were so
rotten that certain criticisms later, which would have been in
their place, in the eyes of at least some people probably were
discredited. It was, in part, the old story of the people getting
between two fires.

>>3) After socialism was overthrown in the Soviet Union, in the
>>1950s, Trotskyism defended the arch-reactionary Soviet regime
>>that resulted, the social-imperialist regime.
>
>So just how was socialism overthrown in the Soviet Union? I can draw a
>dividing line between Lenin and Stalin because it's clear that when power
>passed from one to the other, there was a massive shakeup throughout the
>government, and the policies of Stalin were entirely different from those
>of Lenin. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be the same dividing
>line between Stalin and later Soviet governments.

Ah! You NEVER heard of Chrushchev's speech at the 20th Congress in
1956, in which he suddenly painted Stalin all black???

The Trotskyites at the time were overjoyed. "Just what we've
always said", etc, etc, they stated in greetings.

I recommend you read up on some history. 

>>4) Not all of the Trotskyites but some of them at least
>>even defended, and to this day defend, the Soviet genocidal
>>aggression against Afghanistan in 1979-1989.
>
>Just look at Afghanistan today. It's torn apart from all sides -- precisely
>BECAUSE the revolution there (supported by the USSR) failed.

AAAH! Youre one of those people who're calling the genocidal
aggression by the Soviet Union "a revolution"! Perhaps because
of ignorance? Since you hadn't heard of that 1956 speech I
mentioned above, perhaps there may be such an excuse for you?
But I do suspect that in fact you're a pretty nasty customer.

>>6) The Troskyites not only have not attacked the arch-reactionary
>>"green" warfare (from the 1960s on, and very important today) by the
>>main forces of the bourgeoisie, but have often instead gone to
>>great lengths in order to defend it and support it:
>
>This is simply false. As far as I can tell, Trotskyists are very much aware
>of the reactionary nature of most current enviornemntal reform groups.

No. That I've *never* seen. Please show me just one small
example of this, then.

>>Trotskyism today is an ideology of the most reactionary parts
>>of the international bourgeoisie.
>
>Really. The ideology of the most reactionary parts of the international
>bourgeoisie is capitalism. This is basic Marx.
>
>Gershom

Really. Today the bourgeoisie itself is so utterly discredited,
in the eyes of many people, that it to a large extent *must*
try to cloak its propaganda in phony "revolutionary" terms.

Rolf M.



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