Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 07:29:59 +0100 (MET)
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: M-I: Sweden-Fake Trotskyists losing their youth!


Both the United Secretariat and the militant group have recently suffered
splits in their youth organisations! As these fake Trotskyists begin even
more to tail at best the traditionalists in the Social democracy, the Greens
and feminists the youuth in these organisations are beginning to rebel
against the rightward drift of these Pabloite liquidaters! Good. Great.

However, these youth breaking out to the left in utter disgust with the
mother parties have some very good positions, but they also on a number of
issues wind up bending the stick to far to the left and wind up to the right
politically of the Usec if they continue along this path.

On a number of issues the USec youth have quite clearly got the number of
the Pabloite liquidationist course. Both historically and concretely. On
their capitulation to the Social Democracy,feminism, the greens, and
numberous Internation stuff that both the USec and Militant group have been
tailing for years.

It is because of the present deepening crisis here that the USec and
Militant group are losing their youth. A healthy sign of rebellion against
organisations that historically capitulate to anything that moves.

In thre ivor to distance themselves from these fake Trotskyists they have
unfortunately taken some positions which are not good. Both positions which
are not Trotskyist and positions which are the same kind of liquidation that
the Pabloites historically have used.

Below is a number of comments I have made to them on some of the central
programatic issues that they take up. For Trotskyists at this point i think
that the best think to do with these youth is try to patiently explain to
them some of their mistakes. Although their arguements here are in Swedish I
have answered then in English so you will get the gist of the problems thet
are facing. However these youth are a breathe of fresh air and more then
likely the beginning of the end of the Pabloite organisations if they
continue upon their right wing liquidation towards reformism and neo-Stalinism!

Bob Malecki

First I am writing what I think is some of the problems with your main
programatic positions. Two of your documents the one with the long
description about the struggle before leaving the USec I leave with no
comment, The other documents is sort of a list of things you support which I
do not find vital to discuss so let us go to the main programatic stuff.
However after reading your document i was impressed that a group in the USec
youth have done a fairly good document on quite a number of questions. OK?

You wrote!

Denna enhetsfront har fortsatt att existera efter valet genom "Upprop f=F6r
r=E4ttvisa" (UFR). UFR har blivit en sorglig tillst=E4llning, det h=E5ller idag p=E5
att utvecklas mot en folkfront. Till skillnad fr=E5n vad vissa US-kamrater
s=E4ger =E4r det enda kriteriet f=F6r folkfront inte ett samarbete med borgare, i
UFR =E4r det AFO och SP som representerar borgarklassen genom att missleda
klassilskan och acceptera parlamentarismens och kapitalismens spelregler. Vi
=E4r dock inte helt arga p=E5 UFR, utan kommer att acceptera den om vi till=E5ts
intr=E4da, k=E4mpa f=F6r ledarskapet och framf=F6ra =F6verg=E5ngsprogrammatiska
st=E5ndpunkter. Tills vidare st=F6der vi den kritiskt.

In going through your documents I am taking out things that I think should
be discussed or I disagree with politically.

The above so called "United Front"--"Upprop f=F6r r=E4ttvisa" which you quite
correctlty critisize because the USec and the militant group capitulated to
at best reformist demands and I think the classical mini-maxi opportunism
which is characteristic of both the USec and the militant group when it
comes to tailing Social Democratic Workers conciousness and basic trade
union conciousness. Lenin was quite clear about this stuff and called trade
union conciousness bougeois conciousness in the workers movement. You also
critise this "United Front" for becoming not just a rotten block on a short
term basis prior to the last elections but that the USec and the miltant
group kept this rotten bloc and has changed it into something permanent. And
then you say that you  are not "angry" at this front and would perhaps like
to enter it to fight for the leadership. Well, I think that is one
possibility, but in the previous elections why does one choose between one
rotten block with a mini-maxi program connected to the petty bougeois greens
and their anti-Internationalism and isolationism + the question of nuclear
power. Against another reformist reformation like the Social Democrats?
Because for the working class it was quite clear who the real reformists
were so why vote for the USec and Militant group front? This is and
important question because now we are in a situation where there are going
to be serious attempts perhaps from the grass roots of the Social Democracy
to put forth independent trade union candidates because of the obvious
betrayals by the Social democrats and of course connected to its rotten
block with the center party. Obviously for communists it would be far better
to help a serious gras roots independent move by the grass roots of Social
democracy then get involved in this fake leftist creation. Far better to
give critical support to Social Democrats who are taking a step forward then
giving critical support to the USec and militant group who are taking a step
backward. The cutting edge for this kind of stuff is the central demand that
workers in the Social democracy must struggle to build a new party against
the class cobborationists and traitors who have deserted to the bougeois
camp, Our cutting edge against the USec and Militant group, but also the CP
is to break with the bougeois utopian greens wha are anti Internationaslist
and protectionist. Along these lines and naturally fighting for a full
program above and betond any critical support would be heading towards a
political split not only with the Social Democratic traitors, but the family
of the left which with the greens and a lot of petty bougeois feminism gets
very close to a popular front.

When it comes to the "welfare" state we naturally defend whats left of it,
call for extending it and the only garasntee is a workers government which
can smash the bougeois, confiscate the banks, etc. ertc etc

 Detta =E4r dock inte bara en djupdykning ner i centristisk opportunism, det
kommer att ge stora konsekvenser f=F6r den framtida kampen. F=F6r att
r=E4ttf=E4rdiga sin sv=E4ngning har de gett sig in i en tredje period, sossarna
blir nu st=E4mplade som borgerliga, (vi h=E5ller p=E5 att f=F6rbereda en artikel om
detta som f=F6rhoppningsvis kommer med i det f=F6rsta numret av v=E5r tidsskrift,
"V=E5rt Ord") att g=F6ra s=E5 inneb=E4r ju att enhetsfronter inte kan ing=E5s med
sossarna, d=E4r i majoriteten av den politiskt aktiva arbetarklassen i sverige
=E4r organiserad.

This is either wrong or you appear to be confused. Naturally we can talk and
present reams about the Social Democratic leadership deserting to the
bougeoisie. I mean they already did that in 1918! But to say that "United
Fronts" are no longer possible is confusing the top with the base. United
fronts with the Social democracy will not only be possible but probably
neccessary in the future. For example around the race question and fascism.
Or anything else that unites workers against the class enemy. Instead of
turning our backs to the Social Democracy at this point we should be doing
exactly the opposite. We should clearly state time and again that your
leadership are traitors on this that and this. But if they take one step
which is in the interest of the working class we will march with them.
However we know that anything that they fight for that is a step forward can
only be garanteed by the working class
who is prepared not to reform capitalism but overthrow it.

The problem with Social Democracy and its long period of power is their are
tens of thousands of loyal reformists workers who are breaking away from the
parlimentry group and certain trade union bureaucrats. This does not mean
that they will jump into the arms of a revolutionary Trotskyist
organisation. But it does mean that just with the tactic of the "United
Front" in concrete struggles around concrete questions where revolutionaries
can intervene and try and deepen the political split that has begun! 
Seperate the base from the top but also expose the traditionalists who at
best want to go back to the good old times. By making empty declarations
"sossarna blir nu st=E4mplade som borgerliga" will not change anything. We
have to roll up our sleeves and get in their and struggle! Struggle on every
question that will move the class forward by putting forth a program and
patiently explaining that despite your leaders we will march with you!

Augustikuppen, d=E5 kapitalismen var =E5teruppr=E4ttad. Under tiden d=E4r i mellan
var SSRU en blandform mellan degenererad arbetarstat och statskapitalism. En
stat med ett i huvudsak prolet=E4rt produktionss=E4tt, men med ett "band av
bev=E4pnade m=E4n" som f=F6rsvarade privategen-dom och aktier, och som =F6ppet
bek=E4mpade strejker. I samma sits befinner sig Cuba och Kina i dag. De kan
knappast f=F6rsvaras i krig. Kravet p=E5 politisk revolution har kompletterats
av krav-et p=E5 social revolution. Ingen av dessa stater har =E4nnu tagit det
kvalitativa spr=E5nget, men orien-terar sig fullst=E4ndigt dit=E5t.
   Den enda stat som vi idag erk=E4nner som deformerad arbetarstat =E4r
Nordkorea, d=E4rf=F6r =E4r det s=E5 mycket viktigare att en politisk revolution d=E4r
genomf=F6rs (tillsammans med en social i Syd), vi st=F6der dem ocks=E5 (givetvis)
kritiskt i de nuvarande sk=E4rmsytslingarna med grannen i syd.

The above I do not agree with! I think that your position has to be
clarified. When did the counter revolutions take place in Cuba and China?
And what abou Vietnam? And what makes North Korea different. And if we can
for example defend Irak from Imperialist attack. Why can't we defend China
and Cuba? Your positin reminds of something between Schactman's petty
bougeois opposition in the face of the Trotskyist analisis on the Soviet
Union. Basically their position was "a plague on both your houses". Your
position appears to come from the pressure of distancing yourselves from the
Pabloites and bending the stick the other way. But in fact if you continue
along that corse your position will be to the right! of the pabloite
liquidaters!  Thus having ultimately the same position as the imperialists!
I would be extremely careful here iof I was you. Because you are treading
what i believe to be a very dangerous road.

These are the main programatic points i find problems with. The rest seems
fine albeit on a closer reading in the future i will get back to if i find
it important enough at this point to raise.

Warm regards
Bob Malecki

---

http://www.kmf.org/malecki/

Read the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,
Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball!

COCKROACH, a zine for poor and workingclass people
NOW ON LINE
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------

http://www.kmf.org/malecki/

Read the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,
Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball!

COCKROACH, a zine for poor and workingclass people
NOW ON LINE
--------------------------------------------------------





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