Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 11:02:12 +0100 (MET)
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: M-I: The Neo-Stalinist,MenshevikTrojka! (part 1)


A Reply to Godena,Proyect an Joao...

Well, here we are once again! It took two months and once again the new list
MI is confronted with the same central question as the old list of M1. Once
again the list is lining up with two very diametrically opposed positions on
the very central questions for marxists. And the questions are represented
by to definite trends in the International Workers movement. On the one side
are the neo-Stalinists and Mensheviks of varying degree and on the other the
Trotskyists. On M1 there was also a third trend represented by Aldolfo of
the old hard line Stalinists.

The key questions that once again come to the fore and will do so time and
again is the question of the Vanguard Party vs the Broadies and the question
of which class and which program (these two have a programatical and
ideological link!)...

Mr. Godena is the ideological and programatical expression of neo-Stalinism.
Thus finding themselves in a shambles they are turning to a fairly cute
trick. Stalin, of course i critisize Stalin, but ideologically and
programatically argue for the continuation of Stalin's political line. This
is directly connected to writting off the working class as the *only*
revolutionary force in Society and replacing it with and ideology which
opens the way to anti-imperialist popular fronts and main stream Social
democratic reformism of old in order to take over the role of the Social
Democratic leadership who more and more appear to be deserting to the
bougeoisie.

Proyect is the organisational expression of this trend. He with his line on
the party question, in fact rewriting of history, and blaming the woes of
the Trotskyists and all the other Vanguardists on the party question by
arguing that Lenin was not a vanguardist at all! In fact it was Mr. Z who
was responsible for misleading all of us down the path of being "sectarians"
because we believe that the party is the Vanguard of the vanguard and that
in fact it will only be those elements in the workers movement who rise
above economism, reformism, trade unionism, etc. that can be the link
between the party and the whole class. Against this interpetation Proyect
comes forth with the organisational conception of the "broadies". In fact
the swamp who after the defeat of Stalinism and the desertion of the Social
Democracy into the camp of the bougeoisie and the various anti-imperialists
trends shall build a new party with just these kind of desperate elements
looking for a new home.

This by the way is hardly nothing new. Just a re-shuffle of the
neo-Stalinist, reformist, anti-imperialist forces into something more
permanant. I call it the 9 and 1/2 International. And this organisational
concept has the definite political thrust of the programs of both the second
and third Internationals (under Stalin)..A mixture of Godena ideology about
the non-revolutionary character of the working class+a popular front
anti-imperialist program+
the organisational concept of Proyect. This is what the *real* meaning of
this debate is about so far.

Against this is the idea of a Bolshevik Leninist International along the
Trotskyist and Cannon lines based on the Transitional Priogram and the
historical ideology and program of the Bolshevik Party in Russia, the first
four congresses of the Third International, the left opposition and the
founding documents of the Fourth International! The two are clear and
irrevocably opposed to one another.

These have been the battle lines since I first came two the list here at
Jefferson village. The reason is that it is exactly the two solutions which
confront us not only here on the lists but in living reality also. It has
been the question of questions since the victory of the October Revolution
till our day. It has been a great struggle and in fact the Trotskyists have
not only been correct yesterday, but are still around to take up the mantle
and struggle against the leftovers of Stalinism and Menshevism that are once
again trying to gather their forces after the death of Stalinism and in fact
the desertion of the Social Democracy to the bougeoisie! The swamp who does
not want to follow Stalin and the Social Democratic traitors off the scene
are trying to creat a broadie International on the crumbs of the old and
dead second and third Internationals! And they are getting a lot of help
>from the liqiudators of Trotskyism who as usual are tailing these events.

The only thing new? is our friend Joao who has appeared recently. First with
a document about "Worker Communism" and now a critique of the "Transitional
Program. So let us see what our sympathizer with "worker Communism" has to say;

Joao writes;
>A critique of Trotsky=92s =91Transitional Programm=92 (1938)

>1. =93The objective requisites of socialist revolution=94

. We now know that capitalism=92s best years were yet to come when
>Trotsky wrote this document. Contrary to what he says, keynesianism
>would indeed rescue capitalism from its acute crisis of these years,
>spreading the most astonishing period of sustained growth and technical
>revolution that the history of humanity as ever witnessed (1947-72).
>There=92s a strong sugestion in Trotsky=92s text, and elsewhere, that all
>capitalist countries would end up turning to fascism. In short,
>pratically everything he says here is proved wrong.

I deleted the long and boring beginning of point 1 to get down to the
central question Joao puts. According to Joao Trotsky was mistaken about
capitalism. In fact he claims that "we" know that capitalism best years were
to come. And that "keynesianism" would rescue capitalism. How quaint our
modern historian is. A bit blind about what is going on today and ignorant
about yesterday is the only thing one can say about anybody who says this
kind of stuff. In the first place the arguement about the best years of
capitalism must be seen in the light of the historical defeats imposed on
the working class before the war and the consolidation of the Stalinist and
Social Democratic leadership after the war which gave rise to this new
properous era of capitalism. Unfortunately Joao leaves out the destruction
of a good part of the world, the victory of facism, the millions upon
millions of dead, the liquidation of the Trotskyists etc. That was the price
of this so called "best years to come" line that Joao is claiming. And the
unprecedented defense of Keynes! Well,
what is happening to all those great reforms by the Social Democrats who got
their second chance thanks to Stalin and the Imperialists now! The great
Keynes rescue was in fact dip shit! What is happening today is that all that
stuff is being quickly taken back as the bougeoisie now declares war on its
own working classes. Why?
Is it because Keynes worked? What a joke.

And in fact the last little quip about many countries becoming facists.
well, we are not their yet but national socialism is growing strong in many
countries. And in fact it will probably take facist solutions to smash the
working classes in imperialist countries. I doubt if the workers will accept
peacefully for a long period of time the position of being thrown back to
the conditions of the beginning of the labor movement.

2. =93The Proletariat and its direction=94
>
>Leon could be a loathsome guy. I never could understand what he had
>against Andres Nin and the P.O.U.M..
>O.K., everything=92s ready for revolution, except all these traitors and
>imbeciles that can=92t see it yet.

How about the Popular Front? In fact the situation in Spain was much like
the regime of February-October in Russia. A central question between victory
and defeat for revolution. But this cheap trick of posing Trotsky as some
crazy sectarian who thought that everybody was a "traitor or imbecile" is a
vile slander. In fact it only shows your softness on the popular front
politics which means and has meant incredible defeats everywhere. What is
interesting is that you are in practice defending the Menshevk formula of
revolution. Thus have learned nothing about the history of the October
Revolution. Its success was the defeat of the popular front politics of the
Mensheviks. Because if the Menshevik line had won out there would not have
been and October. Trotsky was basically translating the lessons of October
to the Spanish situation and the betrayals of those who in fact had the
Menshevik line.
>
>
>3. =93Minimum program and transition program=94
>
>Interesting. However, in the last paragraph, he seems to be seeing a
>continuum between minimum demands and proletarian revolution. This is
>yet to be proven. Socialism step by step never worked. Until now, we
>were never able to keep a suficient level of sustained and mounting
>pressure from below.
>That approach seems to be dependent once again of his =93decadent
>capitalism=94 suposition that we now know was wrong then. Is it right now?
>We can never know for sure. We=92ll have to keep knocking.

This also shows your workerist communist bankruptcy. As if enough pressure
>from below is the receipt for revolution. In fact without the party to lead
the events leading up to the pre-revolutionary and revolutionary situations
that capitalism creates in its never ending death cycle there will never be
a revolution. Just new rounds of defeats!
>
>
>4. =93Wage mobile scale and mobile scale of work hours=94
>
>Excellent stuff. It=92s feasability certainly deserves to be studied in
>detail.

Oh Yes! I bet this stuff elementry trade union stuff you like. Fits right
into the picture your painting of pressure from below. Joao can use this to
tail the working class.
>
>
>5. =93The unions in the transition epoch=94
>
>I have no objections on the general idea, but I wouldn=92t remove entirely
>the option of creating new unions (or similar organisms), although not
>in a sectist base of course. There have been some interesting and
>creative initiatives in France (in a totaly apolitical approach) among
>nurses, civil servants, etc..
>I wonder if his numbers on unionization are still correct generally. For
>Portugal, they=92re not. We do a little better than that.

Glad tyhat you like the position on the trade unions.
>
>
>6. =93Factory comités=94
>
>I don=92t think we can speek of =93dual power=94 with the simple constitution
>of factory comités. We had lots of those in Portugal back in 1974-75 and
>the state bourgeois power was unimpressed. The only problem worrying
>them was restless far-left military rebelion. We had workers comités on
>the factories (many of them occupied) and popular comissions on a
>neighborhood basis but not any integration between them. And no
>political party willing or able to lead this movement. I would start
>speaking of dual power when a significative part of the production is in
>the workers=92 hands, politically organized at local, national and
>international level. I don=92t believe we can do this in a national basis
>anymore. Only after disrupting decisively the core capitalist countries
>(although maybe through a revolutionary movement that can have its
>beginnings anywhere in the near periphery) can we move forward to build
>real, solid workers=92 power.

I don,t think the TP has put forth the slogan of factory committes just for
a situation of dual power. These organisational forms are connected to the
living struggle. Whether they be strike Committees, factory committees, or
workers militias. It is the training ground of the workers in taking control
of their own future. And will be a part in the desperate struggle towards
the dictatorship of the prletariat. Thus the Trotskyists put forth these
organisational forms when and where it is possible to raise the level of
organisation.
>
>
>7. =93Commercial secret and workers control over industry=94
>
>Trotsky believed (Lenin too, hellas) that the process of concentration
>and centralization of capital would lead to a giant national trust. The
>proletarian revolution=92s task would be simply to expropriate the
>bourgeoisie and keep on the economic planification by more or less
>similar means. There will be, of course, some measure of workers=92
>control but the bulk of the planning will be transfered to =93specialists
>sincerely devoted to the people: accountants, statisticians, engineers,
>savants, etc.=94. Very slippery business indeed.
>Trotsky=92s obsession with =93great public works=94 betrays his capital
>accumulation approach to building socialism. Given the time he would be
>starting a =93great leap forward=94 of his own. I always had the impression
>that that story about =93degenerate workers=92 state=94 should be read like
>this: put me in the place of that son-of-a-bitch and I=92ll un-degenerate
>it in a few weeks.

No it doesn,t betray Trotsky. It only shows your sympathy with the "state
Capitalists". And in fact the dictartorship of the Proletariat will
certainly be a centralised planned economy to combat and destroy the
centralised capitalists and imperialist economies. No other solution in a
transition epoch is possible.It points to your complet lack of understanding
of the neccessity of a dictatorship in the Transitional epoch.
>
>
>8. =93The expropriation of certain capitalist groups=94
>
>Again that progessive =93expropriation=94 approach. He now takes care to
>contrast it with the reformist=92s nationalizations and, on point 4), we
>do have mention to a linkage with workers=92 and peasents=92 power. But this
>is the guy of all those expedient administrative methods back in Russia,
>including integration of the unions in the state. I always found a facet
>of cold, =93modernist=94 social engineer on him. I=92ve read some =93visionary=94
>texts of his once and it was stuff worth of =931984=94 or =93Brave New World=94.

This also must be seen in the recent for a state! The state being the
organisations of the Proletariat to enforce their rule over the capitalists
and imperialists who get smashed in the process but are desperately trying
to return to power. The struggle in the transitional epoch will be a
desperate struggle and not a question of decentralising power. But exactly
the opposite.

>9. =93Expropriation of privat banks and
>
>All this question of =93finance capital=94 being in command (it goes back to
>Hilferding, by way of Lenin) needs to be reevaluated. There=92s no strong
>evidence suporting it.
>A single state bank then. I won=92t pronunciate myself on the technical
>side of the question. But I=92m already seeing too much state here and too
>few internationalism. And this state is the bourgeois state, that later
>will pass =93from the explorers=92 to the workers=92 hands=94 (last paragraph).
>Just like that? Totally unchanged?

This historical stuff on expropriation of the banks and a state bank is
entirely correct. It has to be seen in the context of the Proletariat in a
specific country seizing power. Hower this does not exclude another
centralised solution if power was to go into the proletariat in several
countries at the same time. But the neccessity of a state bank and
centralism under the transitional epoch are in principle correct and in fact
the only practical solution to the opposition that will be mounted by
attempts to counter-revolution.
>
>
>10. =93Strike pickets, combat unities, workers=92 militia and arming the
>proletariat=94
>
>This was certainly apropriate in the 20=92s and 30=92s. We haven=92t had this
>kind of permanent street gang warfare since then, which doesn=92t mean we
>won=92t have it soon if the present crisis keeps deepening.
>The british S.W.P. no doubt draws from here its appeal for some physical
>action against the fascist gangs. Well, I=92m all for it. But I hardly see
>any historical analogy. Yet.
>The National Rifle Association will be delighted.

Just because Joao has grown up in an era of "class peace" does not make this
stuff old. In fact Korea today where already we are seeing attacks by the
cops on the workers with mobile and army units with tear gas is only a step
away from real bullets. So what do you have to come with in regards to
combating the cops and military who will be called out to uphold order
against workers who are beginning to realize that everything they have
fought for is quickly being taken back? And in fact the pun about the
National Rifle Association is not funny. One of the best things about the
American Proletariat is the fact that they are armed. I think that every
American worker should support the NRA against bans on guns!

Continued in Part 2

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

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 ---