File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9712, message 457


Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 09:56:41 +0100
From: Robert Malecki <malecki-AT-robertsfors.mail.telia.com>
Subject: M-G: COCKROACH! #105  


COCKROACH! #105

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.

Subscriptions are free at    http://w1.934.telia.com/~u93402111/

Now on line! Check out the Home of COCKROACH!

http://w1.934.telia.com/~u93402111/
http://www.algonet.se/~malecki

How often this zine will appear depends on you!

--------------------------------------------------------
1. Insect spray Special (Lenin and the Vanguard Party) 
and Maoism the unscientific revision.

2. On the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

3. Letter to Red Cabbage!

4. Wall street pathognominics

-------------------------------------------------------
Insect spray Special (Lenin and the Vanguard Party) 
and Maoism the unscientific revision.

Rolf, Rolf, you don't really have an understanding of what Trotskyism is
do you?  Even if you could, I don't think you would, as the dogma of Mao
clouds your head.  Trotsky did not oppose the creation of the vanguard
party, he only opposed Lenin's methods.  Trotsky also didn't oppose
democratic centralism either.  The only thing he opposed was the split
between the Mensheviks, and the Bolsheviks.  Yes, Trotsky did do a lot of
work, with BOTH factions in an attempt to bring the two organizations
together, this utterly failed and by the summer of 1917, Trotsky had come
into agreement with Lenin.  Trotsky will admit his error, and so will we,
the adherents of marxism.  Trotskyism isn't some revision, it is marxism,
following it's correct course.  There was Marx, Lenin was the Marx of
the revolutionary period, and Trotsky was the Lenin of the following
period.   Trotsky had the task of forging the collapsed revolutionaries of
the period into a cohesive international, something of a difficult task,
looking at the circumstances.  Have you ever read Lenin's last will and
testament?  He was specifically given this duty by Lenin.  Doesn't this
say something?  It does to us about you, that your revision is nothing but
the amalgamation of hostile and counterrevolutionary tendencies against
the forces of marxism.  Maoism as a historic force is dead.  It is not
guided by dialectics, but by blind and raging emotion.  Where as we look
at things dialectic ally and objectively, the Maoists are guided by hatred
and mistrust - how can this help the working class?  The forces of Maoism
turned from a re-radicalization(not necessarily in the greatness of ideas
but in revolutionary spirit) of the youth in the 50's and 60's to a
disgusting ultra leftist parasite on society.   Individual terror, and
bureaucratic control were on the order of the day.   The youth who
supported Mao were turned off by his Stalinist actions in governing China,
the Cultural Revolution being a prime example.  How do you, explain the
fact that Mao looked up to Stalin, and saw him as an example of good
leadership and as a top comrade?  I think we can all agree that Stalin was
not following the ideas of Lenin, so therefore neither was Mao.  No matter
what you say Rolf, Trotsky was the carrier of true marxism after Lenins
death, not your sick perverse ideas and ideologies of hatred and blind
indignant reactions.  Trotsky's ideas were taken as Lenin's own, and vice
versa.  Lenin's ideas (that the Stalinists used to condemn Trotsky), were
a lot of the time actually Trotsky's!  Now not all the time,more often than
not they came to the same conclusion independently, or together, they 
usually didn't have fight or argue over ideas, because there wasn't much
difference there.  Mao was a Stalinist, his economic and political zig
zags are a prime example of this.  The degeneration of the People's
Republic of China was predicted by the forces of marxism (or in your world
'Trotskyists') because it was based on the same perverse bureaucratic
centralism as the Soviet Union was (from 1923 - present).  The difference
being the Russian Revolution was based on genuine marxism, created by the
working class under the vanguard.  The Chinese revolution was based on the
peasantry following the already deformed thoughts and actions of the
Chinese Stalinists, it was doomed to fail.  Hence, the quick degeneration
of the Chinese State.  Maoism is not marxism, but the intellectual
masterbation of marxism, Maoists are marxists for the intellectual
prestige it brings them when they blow up, act obstinate, and won't allow
any opposition (some prestige!), they essentially smash the thoughts and
beliefs of their opponents, no matter their beliefs.  One of the greatest
tactics that marxists use is 'mild in manner and bold in content' which
gives us the edge of respectability.  The forces of Maoism are split, even
from Stalinism now, and stand on the very outskirts of importance and
influence of society.  There is no leadership of any kind in the present
day Stalinist and Maoist organizations, only a bold rehash of the old
tactics of control as put forth by Stalin and Mao.  The forces of marxism
must stand firm against the vilest forms of revisionism, Maoism and
Stalinism.

Comradely

Rob
------------------------------------------------------- 
On the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

>Robert asks:
>
>>What, exactly, does the [PFLP] stand for, and does it support Arafat?...

Godena can't even answer a question? The PFLP stands for the "People's
Front for the Liberation of Palestine"..

And if you read the document below that Godena sent to the list. One will
quickly see that the so called "slander" is in fact the *REAL* program of
the PFLP. They are petty bourgeois Arab Nationalists with and explicit
stage theory of revolution. Thus calling for a democrat and sicular
Palestine first and perhaps socialism further on in the future. It is
classic Stalinst politics connected to bourgeois nationalism with a program
of reversing the forms of repression in the middle east rather then
eliminating them. 

Well, the Stalinist Soviet Union no longer exists and still these people
are into the bankrupt political line that will lead them nowhere. 

Against this stage theory of revolution and popular front politics of the
PFLP is posed the theory of Permanent revolution of Trotsky. Which means
that it is only the proletariat under the leadership of a Bolshevik Party
that has the Social power and program to solve the dead end fratricidal
wars that ever repeat themselves. Not only between Israel and the
Palestinians, but Iran and Iraq or any of the other tin pot dictatorships
that are set up on the politics of the Stalinists.

Iran and the Tudah Party and Mujadin are slavish examples of Godena's stage
theory and look what it got them! Not even a bourgeois democracy! but a
Mullah led dictatorship. You are a joke Godena and your Stalinist politics
have led historically to defeat after defeat for poor and working class
people..

Bob Malecki

>
>
>Some diseased, fermented turd -- I forget who -- uttered a slander against
>the PFLP the other day.  Probably an acquaintaince of the gem that compared
>General Giap unfavorably to Malecki.  Anyway, for the record, the PFLP is
>headquartered in Damascus (Box 12144) and calls itself a Marxist-Leninist
>organization.  It is still nominally tied to the PLO, though more or less in
>name only.  It began as a Left voice for the "camp Palestinians", the most
>oppressed classes -- "the workers, peasants, sectors of the petit
>bourgeoisie", those most in contradiction with imperialism, Zionism, and
>Arab reaction.  Their strategy was and remains the waging of "protracted
>war" against the Zionist fascist beast and its armed state.
>
>I quote from an issue of their journal, *Democratic Palestine*:
>
>"The PFLP is deeply committed to the unity and independent, national
>decision-making of the Palestinian people and their sole, legitimate
>representative, the PLO.  To this end, we work for strengthening the role of
>the Palestinian left, thereby accentuating the PLO's anti-imperialist line
>in common struggle with the Arab national liberation movement.
>
>The process of liberating Palestine relies on radical, national democratic
>change or development in one or more of the surrounding Arab countries.
>This will provide the PLO with a strong base for liberating Palestine.
>Thus, the struggle for a democratic Palestine is linked to the creation of a
>united, democratic, and ultimately socialist, Arab society.  This will
>provide the objective basis for eradicating the poverty, exploitation,
>oppression and the problem of minorities, from which the people of the area
>suffer.
>
>As a cornerstone in this process, the establishment of a democratic, secular
>state in Palestine will provide a democratic solution for the Jewish
>question in this area, while simultaneously restoring the national rights of
>the Palestinian people.  After liberation, Jews in Palestine, like all
>citizens, will enjoy equal rights and duties.  The decision of the PLO to
>establish an independent Palestinian state on any liberated part of the
>national soil is a step in this direction.  It is the sincere hope of all
>Palestinian revolutionaries that more and more Israelies will recognize that
>they too have become victims of Zionism's racism, expansionism, exploitation
>and militarism, and will join us in the struggle for a democratic Palestine.
>
>
>I urge all interested parties to read the PFLP press, and its concomitant
>literature from the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the
>Palestinian Peoples Party (formerly the Communist Party).  Despite flaws and
>ambiguities, it provides a benchmark for assessing the progress of the
>democratic left in the liberation struggle.
>
>Louis Godena
-------------------------------------------------------
Letter to Red Cabbage!

Dear Red Cabbage and others,

Nice introduction in the latest red cabbage. We appear to have the same
line on events around Cuba and the Soviet Union. However, you do not go far
enough (and you are not alone!) in your anal isis and leaves us class
conscious militants without any direction and finger up our asses saying
"Duh". You smart asses are surpose to be able to figure this shit out and
as Trotskyists  how to concretely deal with the situation that has come up.
And I find it extremely frustrating that most all (if not all)
"Trotskyists" appear to be silent on the question of WHAT IS TO BE DONE
NOW? In fact outrageous hedging and fence sitting! Its despicable!

Trotskyists are surpose to be the leaders of the party of world revolution
and on the Soviet Union it appears that everybody is desperately saying to
themselves quietly. "What the fuck are we gonna do now?" And have no
answers for poor and working class people. Well, thanks a whole lot for
your help people..

I find it despicable and not in the least astounding that all those
claiming to be "Trotskyist" appear to have dug a whole in the ground  on
this question and are hiding. Now how in the hell can we go out to poor and
working class people and explain this shit when everybody is confused and
at best hedging. I have not seen one article which points the way forward
from here from nobody! 

Thanks for all the help my friends! The next time I talk to workers I shall
have to say that I think this---- but the entire movement Internationally
claiming to be Trotskyist have no answers for me or you. So you people
either better come up with some answers because class struggle and program
can not stand still. 

The TP was for the unconditional defense of the deformed and degenerated
workers states. Today this line is absolutely impossible in regards to the
former USSR and Eastern Europe. But according to all of the groups their IS
NO LINE NOW or at least I have not seen one article which tells me what the
line is. Stop the Bullshit people..

 It was the bombing of the parliament which was the final nail in the
coffin. Yes! 
However, when you start rambling about the other republics in the former
USSR (not taken up here at all) as not being a part of this your are wrong.
If as you say capitalist counter-revolution still had not taken place in
certain republics or at a later date then the bombing of the white house
should have been the starting point of a civil war... I think many
"troskyists" appeared to make a fetish of property forms without taking up
the decisive question of who has state power and who controls the guns.
(Not only the tanks that surrounded the parliament, but the armed forces
within the entire ex-union and its nuclear capabilities. 

Getting back to the other republics and any kind of resistance to the
Jeltsin attack on the White house. No civil war and in fact ...

Nothing of the sort happened. In fact all of the former republics accepted
the parliament attack and rushed to make all kinds of treaty's with the now
capitalist Jeltsin regime in power. Meaning they accepted the new
counter-revolutionary capitalist structure and at best wanted to carve out
a piece of the former Soviet Union for themselves.

Naturally one can argue all day as the Morenoites do about the degree of
collectively owned property forms in the various different republics. But
if these people don't get off their asses they might find themselves
defending capitalist Russia with the mistaken line of them still being some
form of deformed workers states. But that is hardly the point. It was the
taking of state power by the Jeltsinites confirmed by the storming of the
parliament building that sealed the fate of the entire ex-Soviet Union.

I am basically translating Lenin's thesis on the state power and
dictatorship of the proletariat backwards. And as long as the state power
leaned on the gains of October with Stalinism in power we defended it
despite the Stalinists. The Rubicon on the state power question and the
Stalinists who had for decades usurped that power was put to end with the
storming of the parliament in the entire Soviet Union..
Which without a civil war concluded the capitalist counter-revolution and
made the now ex-degenerated workers state un-defensible as a degenerated
workers state.

Chew on that my friends..

That is why I today in many of my Radio reports am always talking about
"new social revolutions from Portugal to the Urals"..and will continue to
do so despite the cowardly hedging by the self proclaimed Trotskyist
Internationally. If I am wrong then argue but stop hiding under rocks like
slime. This discussion should be central to any serious revolutionary
regroupment. And as it is today all regroupments would be false because I
don't know any group that has a line connected to What Should Be Done? 

So I think it is your duty to expand this introduction and tell the whole
truth..Not only you but any group or party claiming to be Trotskyist.

By the way it was the first time I actually read anything about what the
Spartacists were saying and their positions on this stuff today. It will be
extremely interesting to hear their views on this. I do think they say that
a counter-revolution now has taken place however I do not know the reasons
why they have come to that conclusions.

Finally if somebody doesn't convince me soon about What exactly is to be
Done in the ex Soviet Union now? I am going to write off all of you as
fencesitters, confused at best and political cowards who can or will tell
the whole truth to poor and working class people. Because for decades the
Trotskyists were right according to Trotsky. Today nobody has a line!
Incredible and out rageous..

Warm regards
Bob Malecki
------------------------------------------------------
Wall street pathognominics

Ok Doug asks some fair questions. The problem we face is precisely 
understanding the causes of the reactionary period we are living in. 
But rather than fixate on the frustrations and the weakness of the 
left we need to rebuild from positions of strength. This means 
applying the lessons of the past to the present. We don't shirk from 
this duty just because such debates may be unpopular. Its obvious 
that in a period of reaction, most workers are turned off 
revolutionary politics. But that doesnt stop us from debating among 
those who are not turned off, and want to regroup so that next time 
we win. There will be a next time;  undermining the bosses 
victory today is the insoluble contradiction of capitalism. 

Doug makes a lot of the conditions today compared with those of  80 
years ago. Is this a valid comparison? The first and only 
proletarian revolution took place in a backward capitalist 
semi-colony. The conditions facing Russian workers and peasants were 
similar to those facing the masses of workers and peasants in the 
world today, war, famine, disease, starvation i.e. capitalist 
exploitation and oppression.  What made the difference then was the 
self-conscious band of marxists who formed the Bolsheviks against the 
menshevik current. The Bolsheviks organized a tiny minority against 
the stream of worker and peasant consciousness, and 
evolutionary/fatalist marxism represented by the then mensheviks.

Today we do not use the terms Bolshevik and Menshevik to represent 
historic party labels, even less historical events in which both 
groups took part in, but the underlying methods which their politics 
reflected. This method preceded such historical groups and long 
outlive them. This is where the real issue is today. Such is the 
demoralisation of the left with the collapse of the SU and the 
victory of the right, that it is backsliding into the menshevik 
method of evolutionary/fatalist marxism.  

Menshevism  presents history in 
terms of necessary objective processes,  and relegates the subjective 
revolutionary role of the party to the sidelines and irrelevance.  
Most important, mensheviks tend to blame the working class for any 
failure to rise to the challenge of history, [that is when mensheviks 
judge history to be ripe for revolution having first gone through a 
protracted democratic stage in preparation] and not the 
misleaderships of mensheviks and the Stalinists who readily reverted 
to menshevism to justify their petty bourgeois class interests. 

Those of us who put the subjective role at the centre, the 
Bolsheviks, are rubbished as a tiny band of loonies who can't tell 
when the revolutionary conditions are ripe and try to substitute for 
the working class.This judgement is reinforced today  by the retreat 
from the Bolshevik revolution as premature - the menshevik position 
at the time, and the position of Stalin, Kamanev and Zioniviev even 
in the days of October. On this list many contributers put forward 
that view in a range of variations - most pointing to the 
political immaturity or small numbers of workers at the time. If 
these people were honest they would recognize that their current 
demoralization results from the collapse of the socialist project 
which they are now retrospectively denying. 

This immediate  discussion arose out of Louis Proyect's 
rubbishing of Trotsky and Trotskyists as incapable of preventing 
fascism in Germany. He put this down to Trotsky's Zinoviev-like 
conception of the revolutionary party.  What Proyect is actually 
doing is denying the need for a Bolshevik party which acts as a 
vanguard. He condemns Trotsky for issuing an order calling on the 
German working class to rise up in 1923.   What Proyect means is that 
 the German workers were not ready, and Trotsky substituted for 
German workers. 

If you read Trotsky's account of that period in "The Third 
International after Lenin" you find a different perspective which 
accuses Zinoviev among others of being in essence mensheviks who 
relied on superficial impressions which supposedly 
revealed an underlying objective revolutionary situation, so that 
the role of the rapidly bureaucratizing  Comintern was to provide an 
ineffectual and untimely mis-leadership.  The resulting failure of 
the German revolution, isolated the SU, sealing its eventual 
degeneration,  and immediately set the scene for the rise of 
fascism in Germany.

But even so, Trotsky [the volutarist/ bureaucrat!] fought tooth and 
nail to stop fascism by desperately trying to get the stalinist and 
SPD workers to join in a united front against Hitler. Those who fail
to see this and instead attribute the rise of fascism to objective 
processes including a nativist german anti-semitism, cannot 
learn the lessons of history,  1923 or 1933, and will not learn them. 
Those that cannot learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat 
them,  or that as Trotsky said,. those who cannot defend old 
victories will never win new ones.   
Dave
-------------------------------------------------------
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 Stratfacts, Bob
Malecki will be giving occasional reports to Stratfacts
Radio audiences in the United States. Text for these
reports now on line. 

http://w1.934.telia.com/~u93402111/
http://www.algonet.se/~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://w1.934.telia.com/~u93402111/

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



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

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005