Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 01:02:31 +0100 (MET)
From: m-18043-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Stuart Sheild)
Subject: Re: M-I: Re: DHKP-C on Anti-Stalinism and the World Situation


>Jim H quotes an article on '"Anti-Stalinism" and the Current World Situation'.
>
>It starts off by ignoring the anti-Communism of imperialism which couldn't
>give a toss about "anti-Stalinism" any more, since it's main anti-Communist
>line is "socialism is dead":
>
>>In the present situation, anti-Communism above all takes the form of
>>anti-Stalinism.
>
>What really worries Imperialism is the *revolutionary* left. This is never
>Stalinist. Stalinist policies promote class-collaboration and the stage
>theory of revolution, which are a political gift to the imperialists. Just
>look at the ANC/SACP front in South Africa. Ted Kennedy embracing Winnie
>Mandela a year or two ago just about says it all. Nothing for the workers
>there except the dubious democratic gain of swapping some white bosses for
>black.
>
>The rest of the article mythologizes on the basis of a fairy tale dichotomy
>between the Heroic Power of One Great Man and the Evil Omnipotence of His
>Many Enemies.
>
>
> The Omnipotent Enemy is invoked right away:
>
>>	After imperialism brought about the collapse of the socialist
>>system, the New
>>World Order demagogy had an ideological influence over some national
>>liberation movements which, although they had launched liberation struggles
>>and had even developed them to the point of revolution, had remained
>>dependent
>>on the strength of the revisionist system. They signed peace agreements with
>>imperialism and spread the process of disarmament.
>
>But of course this is too materialist a claim and might need explanation,
>so the bankruptcy of the Stalinist regimes leading to the current process
>of restoration of capitalism is first of all denied:
>
>
>>	In short, this is the picture of the world today. The question is,
>>how did
>>this negative situation come about? After WW2, socialism went from being one
>>country to become a socialist system covering a third of the world. As a
>>result of the struggles for national and social liberation, many of the newly
>>independent countries withdrew from the capitalist-imperialist market. In
>>many
>>of them, the revolutionary struggle had intensified, and they were at the
>>point of progressing towards socialism with massive strides. This was a
>>period
>>when the capitalist system was being turned upside down by new revolutions,
>>and when a socialist system was  being formed. The imperialist system was
>>entering a stage where it was being wiped out step by step.
>
>and then turned into its opposite with a quite wonderful question:
>
>
>>The compelling question we must find an answer to is how was this
>>situation >reversed?
>
>Indeed, if this was the situation, its reversal was more of a miracle than
>its actual creation!
>
>>	To answer this question, we must begin first of all by discussing
>>"anti-Stalinism."
>>	Today, when its results can be clearly and openly seen, this
>>"anti-Stalinism"
>>has become totally bankrupt. Under the guise of "anti-Stalinism", those who
>>collaborated with imperialism have brought great harm to socialism; they
>>caused the collapse of the socialist system, and their own downfall into the
>>bargain.
>
>So abracadbra, forget imperialism and material explanations -- it's all the
>Trotskyists' fault anyhow! These poor weak, insignificant, stupid reptiles
>were strong enough to bring the whole glorious structure of the Stalinist
>march to communism (I mean, they'd already achieved Socialism way back,
>right?) tumbling down. What fools would listen to such worms? Why everybody
>except Uncle Joe, cos everybody except Uncle Joe repudiated the excesses
>and stupidities of his exercise of power as soon as they got the chance
>when he died, and that didn't matter too much, cos he was dead. So *nobody*
>was left after the whole glorious march to Communism, the whole glorious
>experience of building the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the whole
>glorious experience of bringing socialist solidarity and brotherhood to a
>third of the world -- nobody was left who could recognize for what they
>were policies that would doom Socialism and its glories to ignominious
>defeat. Note that the article doesn't mention the working class once as a
>possible defender of a social system devoted entirely to its most
>fundamental class interests! No. Only one defender existed, Joe himself,
>substituting for the whole working class! Too bad he was mortal.
>
>
>Or perhaps the article sees others building socialism beside the Eagle of
>the Caucasus?
>
>>	Stalin was the target of propaganda, because it was under his name
>>that
>>socialist politics were becoming concrete, and because his policy of not
>>making concessions was making further progress all the time. The world
>>proletariat was progressing rapidly, as was the move towards socialism among
>>those fighting for national liberation. With every passing day, the
>>anti-imperialist camp was getting stronger. Imperialism had to block this
>>advance.
>
>
>Ever onward, from strength to strength, under His Name. What incredible
>mystification in the name of revolutionary socialism!
>
>The wrench involved in explaining the transformation from ever onward ever
>upward to downhill very fast requires a bit of dialectical magic. Without
>realizing the implications, the myth insists on the prime importance of
>Leadership:
>
>>	This is why a sustained anti-socialist campaign was launched
>>against Stalin
>>personally.
>>	To be able to stand up against these attacks (which have been waged
>>world
>>wide on every terrain -  militarily, politically, diplomatically, and
>>ideologically through propaganda), to be able to successfully win new
>>victories and impose further setbacks on imperialism, what is required is a
>>leadership which has a consistent and correct line, along with a strong
>>organisation under the direction of this leadership. This is particularly the
>>case for the socialist countries, but holds also for the entire world. Until
>>the death of Stalin, this fight was being waged successfully, and socialism
>>was making new gains world-wide.
>
>
>Too bad his leadership wasn't up to educating the working class and his
>Invincible Bolshevik Party (minus all the Bolsheviks who had actually
>*made* the October revolution) well enough to provide any continuity after
>he'd gone. I mean, he only had let's say 25 years of more or less
>unfettered control of all the educational and ideological resources of the
>Soviet Union at his disposal, and a captive audience that raved and
>cheered, perhaps ovated is the adequate expression, every time he spoke.
>But then, people are basically ungrateful and incredibly stupid I suppose
>so what could we expect from his nearest comrades, those who had worked
>most closely with him, spoken with him, relaxed together and joked about
>the little victories of the day-to-day construction of Communism with him
>-- what could we expect but stabbings in the back and treachery? How could
>such leading comrades-in-arms stoop so low -- ah me, history is full of
>inexplicable tragedies!!
>
>
>One of the most inexplicable of which is the amazing turn-about of the
>Invincible CPSU at the 20th Congress:
>
>
>>The Resolutions of the 20th Congress of the CPSU were the Start of the
>>Disintegration of the Socialist System
>>
>>In terms of this question, the death of Stalin created a huge vacuum. The
>>weakening of the country and the party structure, the damage caused by the
>>war, the great loss of cadres whose places were not filled for a long time -
>>these and other reasons resulted in Stalin's gap remaining unfilled. This was
>>part of the price that the Soviet Union had to pay on behalf of the people of
>>the world for its struggle against Hitler fascism, which had aimed to enslave
>>the people of the world.
>
>
>Well, well. Funny these material conditions had meant nothing while the
>Great One was in charge. He must have been like some wonderful wallpaper
>holding this cracked and trembling structure in one piece almost in
>defiance of nature.
>(Wonderful struggle against Hitler fascism when the war started, of course ...)
>
>>	As for the collective leadership which replaced Stalin, its
>>capacity and
>>understanding were very far from being up to the task.
>
>As I said, too bad the Great Leader was such a lousy judge of character and
>such an incompetent selector. He makes even the English cricket selectors
>look good! Just look at the miserable record of Stalin's proteges and
>closest comrades after his death:
>
>>The political line
>>which was followed was not clear, and against the backdrop of the confusion
>>which stemmed from the attacks of imperialism, self-doubt emerged. Through
>>exaggerating the situation of the CPSU, they were unable to see the level of
>>revolutionary struggle on a global scale. For those who are unable to
>>perceive
>>the true level of revolutionary struggle through the bombardments of
>>imperialism, the situation was genuinely fearful. Not being able to see how
>>the world had changed from the days when the task was to defend the only
>>socialist country in existence, the revisionists begun to take control of the
>>leadership through expulsions.
>
>
>Strange that our late-comers can see all this but the closest comrades of
>the Eagle of the Caucasus couldn't. Didn't he see they weren't listening?
>Couldn't he read their innermost thoughts? What sort of leader was he to
>allow these doubting Thomases and poltroons to be in a position to take the
>reins after his passing?
>
>Totally oblivious, then, of the marvellous strides being made towards
>Communism that they proclaimed in their speeches, these new leaders began
>the rot:
>
>>	Modern revisionism, having put forward its defeatist views,
>>incriminated
>>Stalin and rejected armed revolution, then began to follow policies which
>>benefited imperialism. The fact is that socialist liberation struggles were
>>left without support, and the path they were following condemned through the
>>mouths of "socialists".
>
>Gaping holes were created that resurrected the spectre of Trotskyism:
>
>>But this is not the most important thing. This
>>revisionism created an opportunity for the revival of many tendencies which
>>were waiting to pounce. Trotskyism, which had never laid down the flag of
>>anti-socialism, became even more excited by this development.
>
>and with them the Italian and French CPs:
>
>>To this chorus
>>were added the voices of the defeated Communist Parties of Europe, including
>>the Communist Party of Italy and the Communist Party of France, who in one
>>way
>>or another had held power in their hands only to surrender it to the
>>bourgeoisie.
>
>Well and good. Only in what year did this surrender take place, dear
>Comrades? *After* the death of Stalin perhaps?? Or at the end of the war,
>on the *explicit advice* of Stalin perhaps, as part of the Eagle's deal
>with Churchill and Roosevelt once his first love, Hitler, had dumped him?
>But I digress...
>
>
>>	A further result which has emerged is that anti-Stalinist writers
>>have served
>>to strengthen class collaboration by the left. The tradition of revolutionary
>>politics, free of concessions, which came to the fore after WW2 when the
>>politics of the 2nd International were thrown into the rubbish bin of
>>history,
>>suddenly disappeared.
>
>The Second International came to power in Great Britain with the most
>outspoken and massive popular support it had ever had! The welfare policies
>it implemented under the revolutionary pressure of the working class have
>taken decades to rip back. The Second International was in fact brought
>back on to the stage of history by the class collaboration practised by
>Stalin in his agreements with the imperialists at Yalta and Potsdam.
>
>The following meaningless gobbledegook is supposed to clarify ideology and
>theoretical positions. But it's just an empty chain of epithets:
>
>>	There is no need to look very far to see what the ideological roots of
>>"Anti-Stalinism" are. The essence of "Anti-Stalinism" is anti-Marxism and
>>anti-Leninism. When Lenin summed up the history of Marxism in Marxism and
>>Revisionism, he wrote that "In the first half century of its existence,
>>Marxism was engaged in combating theories fundamentally hostile to it. ...
>>But
>>after Marxism had ousted all the more or less integral doctrines hostile to
>>it, the tendencies expressed in those doctrines began to seek other channels.
>>The forms and motives of the struggle changed, but the struggle continued.
>>and
>>the second half century of the existence of Marxism began with the
>>struggle of
>>a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism." "Anti-Stalinism" is precisely
>>such
>>a trend hostile to Marxism within Marxism.
>
>
>After another wave of the hand at "objective" conditions:
>
>>We oppose the criticisms that have been made against Stalin which do not take
>>into consideration the internal and external historical and objective
>>conditions, the imperialist blockade, the threat of intensified attacks from
>>fascism which was on the rise, the moves towards imperialist war, the
>>peasants' resistance against socialist co-operatives and the attempts by
>>petit
>>bourgeois currents to destroy the unity of the party.
>
>we get another blast of "you've never had it so good, comrades":
>
>>Contrary to the
>>accusations - that Stalin abused his power, infringed socialist legality,
>>concentrated the leadership of the party and the state into his own hands,
>>and
>>oppressed the masses - the period in question was one when the party's ties
>>with the masses was at its height. This was the most progressive level that
>>the party reached in the entire 70 years of socialism. It was a time when the
>>Stakhanov movement created extraordinary work rates and levels of
>>self-sacrifice, a time when the people had become socialist.
>>	To take a period which is full of successes and achievements, a
>>time when
>>political methods were used to realise these gains, and to evaluate this in a
>>way which puts these methods in opposition to and separate from the party's
>>historical leadership is not consistent with the materialist conception of
>>history.
>
>Mysticism. Ebb and flow. What kind of historical souffle is this we are
>being served up? One day "the party's ties with the masses was at its
>height", the next the whole thing's flat as a pancake. And the reaction of
>all the good citizens of this happy state to the traitors? Not a
>dicky-bird. What did all the Stakhanovites say when their self-sacrifice
>was no longer at such a premium? Not a peep.
>
>
>>	In conclusion, the criteria of political success for
>>Marxist-Leninists is to
>>raise the level of the struggles of the world's proletariat, and to
>>strengthen
>>them with the successes of socialist and internationalist politics. It is to
>>develop the national liberation movements and to strike new blows against
>>imperialism.
>
>Yes, but you won't do that by emulating Stalin's policies. Just look at the
>catastrophic mess his policies produced in England in 1926, China in 1927,
>Germany in 1933 and Spain during the Revolution from 1936 to 1939.
>
>
>>	To not rely on external forces, but to think, to learn, to make
>>revolution
>>and develop how to defend that revolution by totally depending upon and
>>relying upon one's own strength will secure the development of a far
>>healthier
>>socialism, one which will not collapse.
>
>Sounds good, but why did Lenin insist that the Soviet Union didn't stand a
>chance unless the revolution spread to Europe and especially Germany? And
>what is "one's own" here -- the party, the class or the people? National or
>international?
>
>And if this will produce a "far healthier socialism", how come Stalin's
>socialism suddenly becomes "unhealthy"? Just because it collapsed? That's
>sheer empiricism. Will the new socialism be dependent on one Great Leader
>again? What will happen *if* this great leader dies?
>
>>	We have now entered a period where all over the world the struggle of
>>organisations who refuse to surrender to imperialism and who have confidence
>>in the strength of the people, is on the rise.
>
>And we'll have to do a better job of mobilizing this upsurge for socialist
>revolution than the Stalinist Comintern and later the purely nationalist
>dictates of Moscow ever did.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Hugh
>
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
Stuart



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