File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-01-01.033, message 7


Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 08:49:17 +0100 (MET)
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: Re: M-I: The Neo-Stalinist,MenshevikTrojka! (part 1)


Joao replied;
>Quickly, because I haven't got much time.
>Trotsky was claiming that popular front politics and new deal were
>impotent against the crisis and would end up in fascism. Keynesianism
>(the economic doctrine that those politics represented) was an
>unprecedented mega-hit for capitalism. I hope you're not insinuating I'm
>a converted myself.

You are a funny guy Joao. Since you appeared on the list you have thrown out 
some incredible stuff. Then when answered you reply with a half ass rebuttal 
of your own position. Yesterday you were using Keynes to trash the 
Trotskyists. Today you are saying that Keynes was the economic doctrine 
which was a "Mega-hit" for capitalism and say (I think) that you have not 
been converted. Actually your whole supposition here is very empirical and 
wrong. In the first place Keynesian economics was used as a reformist tool 
by the Social Democracy to stop any kind of revolutionary development coming 
out of the destruction of World War Two. It was also a weapon in the hands 
of the bougeoisie to head off any kind of Stalinist expansion futher west. 
It was the Social Democratic predessor to the Eouro-Communist historic 
compromise in fact. But what I still don,t get and you have not answered is 
if this stuff was such a "Mega-hit" for the capitalists then why do we see 
them rolling back all of the reforms that Social Democratic Keynesian politics
represented? My guess is that the bougeoisie understanding that all of the 
destruction which came out of the last big war was a real threat to their 
rule that they were forced to make these concessions with the help of the 
Stalimists and Social Democrats in order to head off any kind of 
revolutionary development. "Detante" was not just a word but a deal in a 
sense between the Bougeoisie, the Stalinists, and the Social Democrats in 
order to consolidate their positions after the bloodbath.

>We were talking about then, not now.
>Fascism was based on a reaccionary class/bloc alliance that is not
>possible anymore in the more developed capitalist countries. But we
>could find ourselves with another kind of stiffening of bourgeois
>dictartorship if class struggle keeps

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. 

On the popular front in Spain Joao writes;

>I see you've been to Dr. Bedggood's classes.

No, not really. Just read a bit of Trotsky on the subject. I suggest you do 
the same. For example the "Spanish Revolution" by Trotsky and put together 
by Pathfinder.


>
>Sure, Bob. No pressure required at all. Just the party with the correct
>line.

Exactly! Pressure will come because of the contradictions of capitalist and 
imperialist society can not be solved. Which puts us right back to the 
beginning  of the Transitional Program.
>
>(snip)
>
>
>> >7. "Commercial secret and workers control over industry"

>
>If a proletarian revolution will find itself engaged in long strong arm
>contests with some powerful intact imperialist centre, the chances are
>it will end up subdue. What we will be facing is proletarian world
>revolution. Winner takes all. Only in this circonstances can we build
>the dictartorship of the proletariat, socialism, withering away of the
>state, communism.
>What Trosky envisages here is indeed some king of "state capitalism". We
>don't need any more of this. It's tried and proved.

Poof! WORLD REVOLUTION! immediately says joao. And Trotsky was just the 
"king" of state capitalism. In the first place the above is not based on any 
kind of reality. If one were for example just take the serious problems of 
combined and uneven development of countries one would see that Joao's WORLD 
REVOLUTION can not take place in such a way. At best and depending on the 
development of the present crisis of capitalism linked to the building of a 
revolutionary International we can at best hope for a series of prooletarian 
upprisings and possible victories in maybe one or two contries at one time. 
Maybe more if a leadership develops which is capable of leading.
>
>> >
>> >8. "The expropriation of certain capitalist groups"
>

>Can't you see? Without real, tangible workers power spread through the
>whole society the bourgeoisie won't need to "desperately try" to return
>to power. It will be there already. This is their state. Any
>revolutionary directory will be infiltrated and corrupted in no time.
>This is what Lenin understood clearly but Trotsky could never quite get
>it. Just between us two, I think he was a... menshevik. Well, I've said
>it.

Yes I can see! Tangible "workers power" in a transitional society is just 
that; the centralisation of state power and the banks and industries in the 
hands of the workers. This has a lot more do do with your individualistic 
view of agents moving in and taking over some of the centralised 
institutions of workers power. It has to do with the Vital neccessity of 
spreading the revolution to other countries. In the historical sense October 
came off in one of the most backward countries in the world. Because of the 
domination of the reformist Social Democracy in the main bastions of 
imperialism-the key question of a revolutionary party- did not develop in 
order to save the Soviet Union from the bureaucratic degeneration that 
Stalins line was a spokesman for. In fact if the Third International had 
been successful in recruiting and training cadre who understood the October 
events and what it meant Internationall for the working class, I doubt if we 
would have seen the Stalinist bureaucracy. But it didn,t.
>
> 
>> >9. "Expropriation of privat banks and
>> >
>> >All this question of "finance capital" being in command (it goes back to
>> >Hilferding, by way of Lenin) needs to be reevaluated. There's no strong
>> >evidence suporting it.
>> >A single state bank then. I won't pronunciate myself on the technical
>> >side of the question. But I'm already seeing too much state here and too
>> >few internationalism. And this state is the bourgeois state, that later
>> >will pass "from the explorers' to the workers' hands" (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.
>> >
>Read the above.
>
>> >
>> >10. "Strike pickets, combat unities, workers' militia and arming the
>> >proletariat"
>> >
>> >This was certainly apropriate in the 20's and 30's. We haven't had this
>> >kind of permanent street gang warfare since then, which doesn't mean we
>> >won't 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'm 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!
>>
> 
>O.K., o.k.. I'm already flexing my muscles.

Not good enough. Try defending the right of the Proletariat to have guns!

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