Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 16:53:50 -0600 (CST)
From: Chegitz Guevara <mluziett-AT-shrike.depaul.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: Re: Sect Feuding


On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Richard Bos wrote:

> Richard:
> This is interesting. I haven't yet heard anybody arguing for "socialism
> from above", and I do not think that anyone would think that. I would
> certainly agree that a socialist revolution should be come from the
> working class, it's party/ies, and it's union organisations. 

The Progressive Labor Party of the United States does.  I think that they
are the only group that advocates a dictatorship over the working class,
but there may be others elsewhere.

> Richard:
> I would not describe the Soviet Union or Eastern Europe as "state
> capitalist" societies. The capitalist mafia that runs those countries
> are trying to establish fully market economies. This is being resisted
> by large sections of the working class who have suffered greatly, and
> want to establish socialism. China is a different situation altogether. 

The Cliffite state cap position is a political justification for a moral
revulsion of the Stalin-Hitler Pact.  It's also a load of crap.  How can
you have capitalism if there is no commodity production?  Capitalism is
*not* the rule of capital, but a society in which production is primarily
commodity production.  What ever was going on the F.S.U., it wasn't
commodity production. 

The only way that one can adhere to this position is to ignore or reject
Marxism.  There are, however, other theories of state capitalism.  The
League for a Revolutionary Party (USA) has one theory, the council
communists another.  Some famous state cappers would include Raya
Duneyavskaya and C.L.R. James, who held differnet positions.  The theory
of bureaucratic collectivism by B. Rizzi was the earliest attempt to
understand the Stalinist degeneration, even before Trotsky's analysis (I
think). 

> Does it really matter whether we agree or disagree on this, though? I
> still say that if the left can focus on what it agrees on, then these
> differences will be resolved more easily in a non-confrontational
> atmosphere. Maybe I am wrong but I think it is worth trying. I have seen
> the same arguements, almost word for word, going on and on for years. I
> bet the same thing happened before my time. Talking at people just
> builds barriers and is a waste of time.

Alliances can be built between revolutionaries and socialists who hold
different positions, but inevitably, one runs up against a wall.  An
example would be in my organization, Solidarity, which has both degen. 
workers' statists and state cappers.  We have a serious problem when it
comes to Cuba, since the state cappers only see dictatorship they don't
want to aid solidarity work, though they will defend it against
imperialism. 

> The people that Trotskyists call "Stalinists" with such venom are mostly
> good working class people who are trying to fight for "socialism from
> below", as I am sure most Trotskyists are. Shouldn't they be focusing on
> what the transnational corporations are doing to our brothers and
> sisters around the world. Shouldn't we be supporting those fighting
> imperialism in Ireland, Cuba, and elsewhere. Shouldn't we be supporting
> the people who, despite imperfections, are at least trying to resist
> imperialism.

My experience with "Stalinists," comes in two flavors.  There are
revolutionary Stalinists, such as Maoists, Hoxha-ists, etc.  But there are
also Stalinists who have lost any revolutionary taste.  The CPUSA is my
best example.  These great fighters for the working class helped sabotage
the P-9 Hormel strike.  In Chicago, they are squashing the Labor Party, in
order to keep it from being any threat to the Democrats (not that the
labor bureaucracy has any intention of that happening anyway).  They
endorsed Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party.  What basis for an
alliance is there?

> We could use this list to develop solidarity action with workers in
> struggle around the world instead of hurling abuse. I am not unrealistic
> about the possibility of this happening. I think that it probobly will
> not happen, but hopefully people will just think a bit harder. 
>  
> Comradely,
> 
> Richard.                     
>       New Worker Online http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2853

We could, and some do.  But unity is built in action.

Marc, "the Chegitz," Luzietti
personal homepage: http://shrike.depaul.edu/~mluziett
political homepage: http://shrike.depaul.edu/~mluziett/chegitz.html

"At Christmas, the Marxists are as nice as Christians." - Karl Marx, 1867



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