Date: Tue, 4 Mar 1997 18:32:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Siddharth Chatterjee <siddhart-AT-mailbox.syr.edu>
Subject: M-I: Re: Trotskyism or self-emancipation 




On Tue, 4 Mar 1997, Gary MacLennan wrote:

<snip>
> 
> 
> Now actually I do not agree with Bhaskar.  For me class is primary.  So in
> actual fact I agree with Hugh.  This for example is what I wrote.
> 

Whether class or not is primary in *a particular situation*, has to
be looked at carefully. For example, in apartheid South Africa, the
primary confrontation was between the "black" majority and the white
European minority. This European minority included the ruling class
and also the white working class. Thus, in the intense racial climate
prevalant in the days of apartheid, saying something like "white
and black workers unite to smash the capitalist apartheid govt" would
be extremely irrelevant and would not draw any support from either
the white or black proletariat. This is the Trotskyist fantasy, or
rather, fallacy as  seen regularly on this list. It is actually a joke
and disguised social chauvinism (long ago remarked upon by Lenin)
calling upon the black worker to unite with the white worker
who is actually oppressing him (along with the white bosses) and enjoying
the fruits of exploitation. What would be the duty of a class conscious
white proletarian worker in the days of apartheid? To join and give full
support to the anti-apartheid movement (even if led by potential black
bourgeoise represented by Mandela). That is, under such circumstances,
one has to be a "traitor" to one's own race, caste or class. All talk
of socialist revolution comes later on. This is the true meaning
of internationalism - not just empty slogans as offered by Rodwell and Co. 

Same thing goes in Palestine where the primary confrontation is between
the Zionist settler state intent on expanding its territory at all costs
and the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. Let Rodwell & Co. go to
Palestine and emit their "universal" slogans. Most likely, they will
receive bullets from one side and stones from the other.

In general, it is true that beneath all of the turbulence in our world,
the issue is that of class.    

<snip>
> 
> Here again the Trotskyist donkey shows its ears behind the banner of concern
> and solidarity.  Hugh *knows* what we gays need.  He *knows* the solution to
> all problems irrespective of time, history or place.  He is never at a loss,
> never unsure because for him one key fits all.  And here is the key
> 
<snip>
> 
> So there you are folks. I can just see the swear word rolling off Hugh's
> tongue :- "anarchist -ugh!!; nationalist - ugh!! Gay fundamentalist - ugh!!
> Revolutionary Trotskyist - Good!!"
> 
> Hugh long ago had his epiphany on his own particular road to Damascus.  For
> him the Fourth International beckons and only the worst kind of ignorance
> and bad faith keeps the rest of us from seeing what Hugh sees so clearly.
> If only the rest of us could grasp what Hugh knows then humanity would make
> a great Leap Forward.  No wonder he is cross with us all some times.
> 
> But there is another line in Marxism and it springs from the concept of
> self-emancipation.  It cries out against the distortion of the Marxist
> method  that Hugh and his trotskyist comrades practice on this list. What
> Hugh cannot see and cannot know is  that because he is always everywhere.
> Because his method is for all time and all situations, he is never actually
> anywhere, nor is he relevant to any particular time.  That dear Hugh is the
> cruel remorseless dialectic that has contemporary Trotskyism in a vice like
> grip.

Very well put, my friend. Rodwell, Malecki, Bedgood are everywhere
at all times which means that they are nowhere at any time. They have
a master key which will fit all locks - this is a magic trancendental
key that rises above time and space. They are constantly trying to
fit historical facts into their universal theory - an anti-scientific
practice. But they have a genuine complaint against the phenomenon of
revisionism which they mis-characterize as "Stalinism".   

> 
> The truth is that despite his confidence/arrogance Hugh does not *know* the
> solution to the emancipation of gay people.  That is  the task of gays.  His
> mantras and prejudices masking as revolutionary purism are not the way
> forward.  I know it is asking a lot.  But could the expatriate-English Trot
> of a school teacher actually learn something from this old gay Marxist?
> Could he not for example assume for a start that I  read all this stuff 20
> years ago and more?

Neither Rodwell nor any of his compatriots know what to do in any
*particular concrete* situation. That is why they offer only generalities
(look at Malecki's revolutionary bombast). There is very little
creativity, originality or analysis in their posts. Nowhere in the world
have they led any successful movement which involved the masses of the
people. It is true, as you say, the liberation of the oppressed - whether
gays, lower castes, aborigines, etc., is the task of the oppressed. The
true proletarian duty is to support all such tasks.

S. Chatterjee 



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