File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-01-01.033, message 36


Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 10:25:17 +0100 (MET)
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: Re: M-I: The Neo-Stalinist, etc., etc.


Joao writes;
>
>O.K., Bob, I have some time now. You just don't know that life is bigger
>than the internet. In fact, since I've been in this thing, my readings
>are in a mess and my family life has strange moods. I still can't decide
>if it's worth it. My wife, uhhh, you should see what growing affection
>she is developing for you (or anybody else here). And she doesn't know
>much english.

The above is very funny. I think their should be a list for women here. And 
we all have our problems on the personal level. Mine is and 11 year old that 
wants to ride on the snow mobile 24 hours a day and a puppy that is pissing 
and sghitting everywhere at present. 

>No revolutionary development came out of WW2. Apparently, some "theory"
>guaranteed it would but it just didn't show up. Some of you are still
>trying to force the facts back into the theory. That's why so much of
>your literature is just useless trash.

What? How about China? Vietnam? North Korea? These being deformed 
revolutions naturally and the weakest link in the imperialist chain at the 
end of the war. China came in 49 despite the Stalinists, Korea a little 
latter on, and Vietnam it took 30 or so more years because of the 
Stalinists. But to say that there was NO revolutionary development is just 
ridiculous. In fact East Europe in a sense was a revolution. A revolution in 
the sense that the Red Army occupied half of it! Naturally the reason that 
it did not go any futher then this must be blamed not on the assumption that 
this was not a period of wars and revolutions-but the bankruptcy of the 
Stalinist leadership...

>
>Yes, keynesianism was all that and a lot more and it was a big success
>at it all.
>Except, of course, like all things, it didn't last forever. I think this
>is self-evident and I don't need to enter into technicalities. Trotsky
>said capitalism had no way out but fascism. He was damn wrong again.
>Capitalism still had that on its sleeve. It can still have other stuff
>right now. You're again brushing away facts that don't fit in you're
>established wisdom. That's why this here is so devaluated these days.
>Keep on with it.

This stuff is just stupid. And you are ignoring the fact that you are taking 
the post war boom as the "only" example of your so called success of Keynes. 
It is so empirical and false and so typical new leftist in that you think 
the whole world turns around the spoiled brat generation who was lucky 
enough to grow up and be old in this period. Now you are trying to justify 
this shit into some permanant law of god!

>
>> 
>> What? Fascism is simply one sort of bonapartiste solution to the deepening
>> crisis of capitalism. Hitler was hardly and exception. In fact conditions
>> are rippening for a new fascist galjon figure to once again raise its head
>> in numerous countries.
>> 
>
>I mantain what I've said - which you not always listen carefully.
>Historical fascism (there were of course different brands of it) was
>suported by a reaccionary bloc of classes that are not all still there.
>Of course, given a sharpening of class struggle, the bourgeoisie will
>resort to any other kind of muscular regime - and there have been many
>in its history.

Another snowjob Joao. No Hitler will not rise from the grave! But the facist 
solution by capitalism which is always ultimately directed at disarming a 
pre-revolutionary situation or a revolutionary situation will be very *real* 
in the future!

>This is just too insane. Let me try to put it back up again. The
>contraditions of capitalism will generate pressure for its overthrow.
>The party is an organized expression of that pressure. Good tactics and
>wise leadership can help it have success... if the pressure mantains
>itself stable and rising. If not - adios amigo.
>You can put all your books on the shelves again.

The contradictions of capitalism will create the conditions for its 
overthrow yes! But it will not disappear by it self . It must be smashed by 
the proletariat led of a Bolshevik Party Internationally. And I have a 
question for you J0a0. Is the above you attempt to formulate the mini-maxi 
stuff or is it just straight out Bernsteinism?

>I didn't say immediately. This will take decades, maybe more than a
>century to complete itself. Combined and uneven development are indeed
>problems we must face. There are others: unequal exchange, profit
>repatriation, financial drainage. Those are the mechanisms of
>imperialism who shape the world as we know it. That's why the hutus take
>on the tutsis, the serbs take on the muslins, the liberians anything
>that moves and the MRTA makes hostages to the disgust of Vargas Llosa.
>We are facing Chaos. And it is the workings of the law of value
>operating on a global scale.

Not really Joao! The decades stuff is pretty difficult to answer. It depends 
a lot on what happens. But we have just gone through a period of decades of 
peaceful-coexistence and now things are once again beginning to heat up 
everywhere. Been reading the newspapers lately Joao. From Korea to Sweden, 
>from Israel to Germany, From Greece to the French Truckers etc. But what 
bothers me Joao is that you my "socialist" friend see the "chaos" where 
communists-Bolshevik Leninists see the possibilities!

>Our present task must be create economic organisms of solidarity among
>workers to face the big bosses and the multinationals. From there we
>will be able to create a revolutionary party. A party of the
>revolutionary workers of the world. This party will not conspire to make
>a revolution in Peru and perhaps another in Indonesia next year. We can
>do nothing with these countries, once isolated. This party will aim at
>overthrowing capitalism on the whole world, which can only be done by
>striking decisively at all the core capitalist countries, even if this
>is achieved by an enveloping movement. The point is that the move must
>be coordinated and have strategic consistency. This is what I call world
>revolution. We are still very far from it. But it's the only thing worth
>considering.

The above reminds me of somebody ridding the A-train to work each morning. 
Ho Hum- now some coffee-a bisquit and the latest on evolution! Not the 
explosive character of the epoch we are living in and the possibilities of 
the Communist to intervene in this and change the course of history. So 
don't choke on you coffee and bisquit Joao. And take out a good pension 
insurance because with your plan for revolution if successful will get you a 
place in a nice warm old people's home!

>You can't take a country, hold it, and wait to spread the revolution
>from there later. You would be dead as a workers state very soon. The
>russian revolution stood some 3-4 years of real workers power, all of
>them ruinous war years. After that it was defeated, because it was
>unable (had no material and human resources to) create a real workers
>state built anew. All it had was the old czarist state on new hands. The
>old crept in very rapidly. Even when the red army was heroicaly fighting
>the whites and the imperialist intervention, the old was rapidly taking
>hold in the russian state. Men are fragile stuff. They mold themselves
>in whatever established strutures they come to rest upon. Mere stated
>revolutionary will is impotent against that. And that's what Trotsky
>stands for - all revolutionary will, crippled, bankruped, sanctified
>theories and no real transformation of the state and the power
>structures throughout society at large. Pure jacobin voluntarism. We
>will just have to believe his word that he is there holding power in the
>old bourgeois state (under some kind of exceptional regime) in name of
>the workers. His word will fade away and things will just find ways of
>persisting on being the same - capitalist exploitation.

Trotsky a "Jacobkin"?. Well- in fact you are doing here what the state 
capitalists have always been doing. A plague on both your houses. The 
politics of sitting on the fence while gigantic battles are taking place. 
>
>The only hope is world revolution. Burn down the bourgeois state all
>over and build an entirely new one - the world dictatorship of the
>proletariat.

Ah. Somethin we agree on. But then you have to have a program and a party 
which can do this Internationally and not just wait around or at best try to 
put a little pressure on from below as you recommend.

>
>I do defend the right of the proletariat to have guns. And I certainly
>have no ilusions as to, if we are to go somewhere, they'll have to be
>used at some point. Good enough?

Yes! That is very good at least on paper!

>
>> I am not a "state capitalist" but the former USSR was capitalist.Ha HaHa 
Joao.
>> But I am glad to here that you would have defended these countries against
>> imperialist aggression, however i don,t know why...
>> >
>
>Against imperialism, I'll defend almost anything really. I mean, I
>defended Saddam Hussein. Didn't you?

Naturally i defended Irak and the Kurds from imperialism, but without giving 
one bit of political support to any of these people who claim to be their 
political leaders. Now
What is this "imperialism" then you would defend almost anything really?

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





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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005