File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-02-11.162, message 22


Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1997 06:37:02 +0100 (MET)
From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki)
Subject: Re: M-I: breaking with democrats is a "PROCESS"


Cassius writes;
>R. Malecki  thinks that  the Chris Driscoll "PROCESS" for breaking
>(will Chris actually "break"?) with democrats, means "opportunism of
>the lowest despicable degree". A lot of people in this list are very
>keen on adjectives qualifiying the other's ideas, quoting the
>marxsit classics as the Bible and excomunicating each other as
>Middle-Age Popes. As democratic socialist (Socialdemocrat?) I know
>that neither my  Party neither me, have the absolut possesion of the
>truth, because socialism is a way and one way is always a
>process.(without capitals), amd even the truth changes along this
>way.

Now Cassius, why get upst about the names. Usually when i use names it is
specifically linked to a political analisis. And in the case of Cris D's
"PROCESS" I explicitly said that this process was linked at best to
capitulating to the prileleged layer of trade union bureaucrats who have
been fed with a silver spoon by thr Democratic Party and now feeling a bit
of pressure under the present anti-working class offensive Internationally
against the workers movement are paying lip service to supporting the LP
while channeling all of the votes and money to the Democratic Party. So I
mean't and still mean that this is the only proces going on in Chris D's head!

>	It is surprising to read in this list people saying (it was not
>malecki's), "socialism will come in USA with uprising following the
>lines of october's revolution". Anybody in this list means, that it
>has something related with scientific socialism?. To compare USA,90's
>with the underdeveloped Russia in 1917.

Really! I think you are wrong on this. I think that the lessons of October
will lay the basis of any pre-revolutionary and revolutionary situation of
the future. Both in organisational terms of the Proletariat (Soviets) and in
the political sense a linking of the proletariat with the revolutionary
vanguard with a Bolshevik program and in the process a political split from
the reformist misleaders. Although the peasantry at least in the advanced
industrial countries certainly will not be the same. In fact I think that
for any Socialist or Communist this would be ABC stuff. Because I doubt if
the bougeoisie are going to give up without a fight.

>
>	Malecki talks about "Union's bureaucracy". As former member of the
>direction of a socialdemocratic Union "bureaucracy", I thank you for
>no saying "Unions nomenklatura". "Bureaucracy" sounds less stalinist.

Well there is a difference betwen the Stalinist bureaucracy (a parasite on
the gains of the October revolution) and the trade union bureaucracy. The
trade union bureaucracy is a priviledged layer of reformist and Stalinist
misleaders who usually put peaceful coexistence with the class enemy before
the interests of the proletariat in societies where capitalism has never
been overthrown.
>
>	Do R.Malecki think that the direction of the trotskist movement is
>not a "bureaucracy"?.. It is impossible to separate "democratic (?)
>socialism" from "bureaucracy".

Of course not. The Trotskyist have always been to small to be a bureaucracy
and to small to betray the proletariat on the levels of the second and third
international. That is why I say the Fourth International must be reforged
and not a new 5th International be built..
>
> The same attacks was made to the
>                                                    Social Democracy.
>
>	Malecki says: "Social Democracy has deserted the working class".
>
>	BUT THE WORKING CLASS HAS NOT DESERTED THE SOCIALDEMOCRACY.

Oh really! I can not speak for what is going on in England or Germany but I
can certainly say that the Swedish Workers are certainly waking up out of
decades of support to the Social democrats. This because of the present anti
working class policies that they have been pushing while presently in power.
And this I think is only the beginning of the and wera of new inter
imperialist rivilry.
>
>	Of course, it must be because a lack of self-consciousness. You must
>join your old Lev thoughts, when he wrote that perhaps it would
>not be the "working class the  revolutionary class. Trotsky already
>knew this, when he destroyed the counter-revolutionary workers
>bureaucracy in Kronsdtatd. You can try  make the uprising with the
>lumpen.

I defend the supression of the Kronstadt revolt.

>
>	Although it wasn't yet socialism, NEVER and NOWHERE  has the working
>class had more power that in the Western Europa in the time of the
>great socialist leaders (Brandt, Palme,etc.). To talk about workers
>power in Soviet Union is a joke. Have you realised how epic was the
>resistance of the russian working class against the destruction of
>the  "workers and peasants government"?. You can compare with the
>fight of koreans workers and his leading "socialdemocratic" unions
>bureaucracy.

This is just and absurd Social democratic pipedream. What power? To
determine the color of the curtains at the local factory! Yes, a certain
number of reforms which Trotskyist defend came in Social democratic led
countries. But this was ONLY with the good wishes of the capitalists who saw
in Social Democracy a savior from the events in that horrible Soviet Union
>from spreading to the rest of Europe. You can thank the Bolshevik Party and
the October Revolution for those gains! And notice how quickly those gains
are being taken back these days with the demise of the Soviet Union!

>
>	I agree with you about the chase of the capitalism for more profits
>in today's international market. But IMHO, all the left forces must
>unite their efforts to fight against, instead of  this struggle 
>between socialist forces. I don't know very much about american
>situation, but  I'm sympathetic to this Labour Party.(Sorry Chris, if
>this sympathy of one socialdemocrat offends you).

A united front certainly could be and alternative on the left. But this only
one condition and that is that a united front is a independent mobilisatioon
of the left and working class organisations. This means NO popular front
politics and unity with bougeois formations!  And in Chris's LP of PROCESS
that means breaking with the one of the twin parties of capitalism in
Ameruica The Democratic Party before their can be any question of unity or a
united front at all!
>
>This brother's killing of the left forces has been historically the
>cancer of  the workers movement. It leads only to the sterility. Do
>you realise Malecki, what has been the result of  the fight
>(sometimes heroic)  of sixty years of the trotskist movement. Nowhere
>you have a  remarkable influence in the working class. Is it not
>sterility?. Together we can get more.

Not really! The historical question that has been killing poor and working
class people is the rotten popular front politics of the Stalinists and the
class collaboration of the reformists with the class enemy! The only reason
that the Trotskyist have not been successful is because the Stalinists have
always been trying to liquidate them. This and the fact tyhat the Stalinists
had state power + the new life that the capitalist class gave to the Social
Democrats has prevented the revolutionary politics of Trotsky from becoming
a mass influence. However that is not the case any longer! The Stalinists
have disintegrated and the Social Democracy has deserted to the Bougeoisie.
This is leaving and unprecedented opening for the first time since October
for the p=E5olitics of Bolshevik Leninists to once again enter the stage of
history...

>
>I would like to say "Comradly", but I'm afraid it can offend you.

So you would say Comrade. Perhaps on a barricade someday if you wind up on
the right side of it. But if you support the politics of Chris D. You will
unfortunately wind up on the wrong side of the barricades. Because Chris can
even get it up in the LP for a clear and clean break with the Democratic
Party. A party which is the one of the twin parties of capitalism in
America. A party with so much blood on its hands it never could wash it off.
By the way as and example it was the Democrats who sent the first troops to
Vietnam! And it was recently Clinton that sent in the stealth bombers and
cruiser missiles against Iraq..

Bob Malecki
(Bolshevik Lenminist-Trotskyist)

==================================================

Check Out My HomePage where you can,

Read the book! Ha Ha Ha McNamara,
Vietnam-My Bellybutton is my Crystalball!

Or Get The Latest Issue of,

COCKROACH, a zine for poor and workingclass people

http://www.algonet.se/~malecki
--------------------------------------------------------










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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005