File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/97-04-03.022, message 61


Date: Wed, 2 Apr 1997 23:40:53 GMT
From: Chris Burford <cburford-AT-gn.apc.org>
Subject: M-I: Re: Despatch from the Stalinist front




Mark wrote:  "Despatch from the Stalinist Front" 2nd April
(at five in the morning?)


>>
We are in good heart. We have been genuinely surprised by the number of
subscribers to the LeninList. We continue to debate Stalin even, and
Chris Burford but not Gerry Levy is welcome to bring his thoughts there
(sorry, Chris, but we are not going to debate you here, because then the
bottom-crawlers will rise from the silt again).

The LeninList-AT-aol.com is a home for anyone who wants serious marxist
debate. I invite others to join in addition to the many who already
have.
<<

I am rather surprised to hear I would be welcome on the Leninlist,
since I clearly do not subscribe to all aspects of Lenin's
interpretation of marxism, although I think Lenin's model
has been the most succesful and influential model this century,
and absolutely must be discussed by marxists, if we are to refocus.
I am sure that at least one promoter of the Leninlist will
continue to have a decidedly jaundiced view of myself, and I would
rather assume the opposition to zubatovists to be applied
without too fine a judgement. Would Zeynep be eligible?
Certainly the personal attacks on Zeynep did not inspire confidence, 
and even less
so if the political point was not personal anyway. Why then could
it not have been expressed more clearly politically? 

Whether the formation of the Leninlist is a defeat or an 
advance will be seen in practice. If it helps to consolidate
a more coherent updated argument for Marxism-Leninism in the late 
90's and can subsequently intervene in wider forums in a way
that convinces and wins support from people of good will, OK.
If the brief call indicates that subscribers will participate in 
wider forums in order to attack people identified as "zubatovists"
by some arbitrary procedure not clear to the majority of 
members of the wider forum, then it will be a recipe for getting excluded
rather fast from those wider forums if they have any moderation.

My experience is that it is unwise to greet sarcasm with sarcasm.
If not all or even the majority of influential members of the Leninlist
would not wish to call it the Stalinlist, it is better not to do so.
I do think it is a defeat for those who wished to argue the overall
positive nature of the Soviet Union, and that Stalin had at least some
positive aspects, if they feel they cannot debate in a wider forum
like this, with or without the benefit of their own list.

I suggest the price for being able to do so convincingly is a willingness
to agree that there were "grave mistakes" (as Stalin himself put it)
associated with the handling of contradictions in the Soviet Union,
while arguing their main point that the achievements or certainly
the efforts outweigh the shortcomings. A one sided approach will 
fail to convince and will leave the field open to contributors 
arguing a hostile position. One-sideness, dogmatism and 
subjectivism, are not most convincingly counterbalanced by more
one-sidedness, dogmatism and subjectivism.

I am not quite sure what bottom crawlers are, whether this is referring
to an ecological niche or a more scatological habit disorder. 
Either way, I thought Lenin argued the wisdom of addressing your 
opponents at their best rather than their worst. There is little point
in arguing symbolically by conveying contempt for an individual
or a position. I would claim to have demonstrated in practice by
a polite and serious reply to Jerry's post about "StalinISM" I have
not stimulated a series of further unilluminating exchanges. I have
no reason to think that Jerry agrees with all my points, but I am 
reasonably confident that he would not just wish to dash off a reply.
Similarly I had a polite but sustained series of exchanges some
months back with Hugh that failed to elicit convincing evidence
that Stalin's summation "Foundations of Leninism", that was widely
distributed in the parties of the Third International, was 
at variance with Lenin's writings. Perhaps we will return to this
important subject of what Leninism was understood to be, but
it is demonstrably false to say that it cannot be debated on 
a list such as this if people show some self-discipline and
some selectivity.

I do not see how someone holding Mark's position is going to deal with
the absolute inevitability that in a wide forum such as this 
there will be a proportion of posters who believe: 
a) that the mistakes made in attempting to build socialism were 
severely demoralising
b) that the prevailing verdict (history is after all usually 
written by the victors) is that Stalin was a violator of human
rights rather than a liberator of humankind
c) and the fact that there will be a number of intelligent Trotskyists 
who are convinced that a critique of what they lump together as 
"Stalinism" is indispensible to being able to define their own position.

There are going to be others who see a symbolic bravado contest 
between Stalinophobes and Stalinophiles as pointless, and if you are
going to post at all, displays of contempt for bottom crawlers are
unlikely to impress them.

Perhaps the different lists need to develop their house culture for
the time being, and own sense of internal self-discipline,
but I am sure that each group claiming to 
be reapplying marxism, will need to be able in a wider forum without
launching personal attacks which violate the basic rights of other
subscribers, to show they can defend 
their position as relevant to an objective understanding of the past,
and more important, a relevant political position today.

Chris Burford





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


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005