Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1998 16:24:42 -0700 (PDT) From: David Walters <dwalters-AT-igc.apc.org> Subject: Re: M-G: 1. Resp. to Hugh; 2. "Transitional Method"; 3) "Marxists Withou Jaun asks some interesting questions. I want to try to answer some of them briefly. Altough from a strickly intellectual point of view with "no strings attached" Barnes ditching of PR seems 'reasonable.' But you are viewing it abstractly...very abstractly. First, in the speach you quoted, "Their Trotsky and Ours" he attacked what is in essense 95% of the worlds Trotskyist movement. Secondly, and more to the point, Barnes wasn't just 'questioning' PR, or, even, ditching PR...it was the acceptance of the two state theory of revolution which WAS key to Trotsky's opposition to Stalinism and Cominterns adoption of essentialy a Menshevik perspective of two-statge revolution. That's what I meant by 'abstract.' One should always question these things in light of history. Barnes not only questioned it, he adopted the perspecive of Trotsky's enemies and the enimies of socialist revolution: Stalinism. By rejecting PR he adopted a stalinist position, essentially...and that position put forward internationally by Castro's Communist Party...the speech was Barnes mea-culpa toward fidelismo and EVERYTHING that entails. More another time on this. On the Trasitional Method...the TM is the underlying Marxist method that the Transitonal Program uses. Simply put, in order to bridge the cap between the minimilal program of the social democracy and the maxilimalist program of the ultra lefts and Third Period Stalinists, a series of demands could be raised to mobilze the class in basic defense of it own interests AND at the same time, those demands could also challenge the basic under pinning of the enemy class AND the union bureacracy. 30 hours work for 40 hours pay is one such demand that still hold water, so does 'workers' control' over production, demands that appeal to workers immediate interests but something the capitalists would be hard pressed to concede, either economically or politically. The demands are less important than the method, however, as the demands should change depending on the level of the class struggle and the level of the consiouness of the class AND the resistance of the bosses. The TP and method allow for a fluidity of tactics without getting locked into a dogma of demands. MOST Trotskyist groups see the TP as a bible of slogans and by doing so, actually reject the method underlying the whole point. David Walters --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005