Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 16:29:07 -0800
From: Gershom Bazerman <bazerman-AT-uclink4.berkeley.edu>
Subject: Re: M-G: BEAT BACK THE COUNTEREVOLUTIONARY SABOTEUR AND FBI



>From: Rolf Martens <rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>

>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.

This is a ridiculous line of argument. The Trotskyists presented a threat
to Stalin, so he spread vicious slanders about them and did his best to
eliminate them entirely -- rather than keeping with Lenin's principle of
democratic centralism. Then, because Trotsky had been so effectively set up
as an evil figure, further detractors of Russia's beurocratic bonapartists
were linked to him by the repressive instruments of the state. So, it's
correct to say that further critics of Stalin were lumped with Trotsky.
However, it's utterly wrong to say that Trotsky CAUSED the failure of the
later critics. The beurocratic parisites would have supressed that
criticism one way or another. Furthermore, you haven't even shown how
Trotsky was "rotten" in the first place.

>>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???

Exactly. Only a speech. No real action to change where the power lay.
Because there was no real transfer of power, merely an attempt on the part
of Crushchev to appease the western imperialists -- an extremely Stalinist
thing to do, in accordance with the notion of "socialism in one country."

>>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.

The SL for one. They've taken heavy criticism from reformist left groups
because of their stance that most enviornmentalism is in reality a thinly
veiled attack against the working class, and a conceit of the petty
bourgeoise.

>>>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.
>
>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.

The ideology of the MOST reactionary parts of the bourgeoisie, I still
maintain, is capitalism. They have no need to hide their true class
interests while they control the apparatus of the state. The groups in
service of the state which draw away revolutionaries tend to be either
rad-lib outfits, or reformist socialists such as the UK's SWP. Most "left"
elements in the states end up supporting the Democratic  party because they
have been lulled by the ideology of a capitalist-democracy and the idea of
gradual change. Besides which, Trotskyists tend, by and large, to be
members of the proletariat.

Gershom




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