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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005