Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 20:19:27 +0000
From: Antonio Mota <motant-AT-geocities.com>
Subject: Re: M-I: Re: Defining through practice


Hugh Rodwell wrote:
> 

> Such an interpretation might exist, in personalizing falsifiers of history
> such as Isaac Deutscher, say, but Bob M was talking about leaderships of
> the working class movement, Stalinists and Social Democrats, and their
> historical record of betraying revolution after revolution (Britain '26,
> China '27, Spain '36, postwar Europe especially Greece and France, Hungary
> '56, France '68, Portugal and Spain in the '70s, Iran '79, Nicaragua, etc
> etc down to the final selling out of October to the Imperialists by the
> Stalinist scum full-blast that started in 1989).
> 

"Stalinist betrayal" - one size fits all - it's the ultimate answer. But
BTW where did that applies to Portugal '74, in your opinion? If I
remember correctly there was a military revolution due to the colonial
situation, not a proletarian or burgeois revolution. For then on,
ofcourse the political and social movements took over, and we were close
to a seizure of power both from the left and the right. What you call
betrayal was the decision of the CP not to go in civil war? Well, if it
is, I ashure you no one was interest in it, here. You know, it's easy to
talk about revolutions and the kind, but when you're facing one in
reality, things come to be very diferent of theory. But it's interesting
to notice that on the streets then (we saw the pro-moscow party PCP (I
assume that what's you call "stalinist", we call then "revisionist" and
"social-fascists"), a miriad of ML parties (wich call thenselves
Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist) but not one single party of trotskyst
inspiration. And that applies to the anti-fascist movement prior to the
revolution. It's seem real revolutions don't come in hand to then.



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