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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005