Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 03:56:32 -0500 From: malecki-AT-algonet.se (Robert Malecki) Subject: Re: SV: M-TH: A vulgar marxist here Charlie writes! >Here's back at you, Bob, the bad boy, OK! But whats the "badboy" bit? >Bob says, > >To a lot but this last is quite important. So we start their. Sorry Charlie >but the Stalinists gave it away in Vietnam already at the end of the war > >Chas. interrupts - What war ? WWII ? or the Viet Namese war of national liberation , 1975 ? Actually both! But I meant WW2 and things like the Geneva Accord. But also today Vietnam like China is taking a dangerous path tyowards capitalist restoration. > >Chas. =AF I don't know Bob. This sounds like white boy, armchair revolutionary stuff. The Viet Namese took too long for you to throwout your fellow Europeans ; the Europeans were imperialists, mass murderers. The Viet Namese GAVE away half the country ?!! Gee, you get mad about that t.v. show about U.S. heroes. I'm getting a little recentful of your racist arrogance. Your fellow Americans TOOK some of the country. The Viet Namese won a great victory for the workers of the world. Has your group of communists accomplished anything like that ? No. I think I'll go with Viet Namese Leninism over your variety. No not really Charlie. Ever here of the Trotskyists in Vietnam which were a leading factor in vietnam both before during and especially after WW2..And stop playing the poor little third worldist. In fact the American ruling class and its lackies are responsible for Vietnam and not the poor and working class people in American uniform that died there as cannon fodder..The Vietnamese peasants and workers won a great victory despite the Stalinists. And now your charming Leninists want to restore capitalism in Vietnam..So you can certainly have them. But unlike you Trotskyists have been in opposition to the politics quite a long time and will continue with this. But with the death of the Soviet Union Stalinism is also dead and their will hardly be any new "Vietnams".. > By the way, in your Part II "to a liberal" or whatever, when you talk about the Viet Namese girl tragically burned; and you sort of set it up that you are on her side versus Nancy. That was real petit bourgeois phony stuff. I mean I'm glad you are so angry with rich people, but just because you are mad at U.S. imperialism (you said a previous comment by Hugh about a recent story on Viet Nam "bugged the shit out of you".) That's healthy anger, but not good Leninism to use it as an excuse to dump insults on Nancy. Nancy did not bomb Viet Nam. And it was real hokie to write in a reply to "a liberal" which seemed to imply Nancy, that somehow the tragically burned Viet namese girl was on your side, along with the old Black man Willie against Nancy in the argument. Now you turn the arguement upside down. First you accuse the horrible Trots of never leading anything. Then you turn around and defend Nancy who never bombed anything. With Nancy's line she probably would have abstained because their was no gender line..And I see "Willy", Zeke, and the little Vietnamese girl" on my side. > In my party club, chocked full of workers, men and women, you would have been criticized for "subjectivity" distorting your analysis. I think we need more attention to subjectivity in the party, but you can't claim clearer thinking than Nancy on the class struggle by trying to make people sorry for the Nick's and Eddie's. I can't make people "feel sorry" for anything. They can only do that themselves. In fact some of the people from poor and working class people who have commented on this stuff say nothing about "feeling sorry" but state in their own terms basically a lot of the same ideas.. > In summary, your effort to make it out that you are with the victims , the worse victims, and Nancy is with the victimizers, fails. Well she does victimize people. Because she has no class perspective.. See my reply to her today.. > By the way, it was three old white men, communists retired steel worker, autoworker and truck driver (among others) who taught me that a main task of the working class is to fight racism in its ranks, that it is the main divider of the working class. They based their analysis on Marx and Lenin and years of experience at the point of production. Again sort of a flip side of the point of your old Willy story on a Black man making a class point, These white workers make a national liberation point. These three had stories of their suffering, like your "part two to a liberal ". One went to jail for eight years during McCarthyism. So they are working class victims if that's the premise for arguing for you. National liberation my ass..According to you your "workers" fought racism in the ranks (meaning union) and this is a class perspective to unify the class against the class enemy. Only the Stalinists could possibly wind up with this extremely dangerous idea of "national liberation" which is nothing other then a suicidal ticket to extinction..Against this is a multi-racial class struggle and party which vyes for state power in the interests of the whole class.. > >Chas. - Bob your version of history is getting more and more dillusionary ( can I say that without Hugh defending your "closest thing we've got to an authentic working class voice" ?) So, you don't see the defeat of apartheid as a liberation. It's really all or none with you , isn't it ? Did you ever here of minimum and maximum program as part of Leninism ? Oh I see! Sort of like Socialism in one country and all that. well where has all this stuff gotten you. The Soviet union is dead. China is well on the way and Fidel is on his knees to the pope. And in fact the only thing that has happened is that Stalinism and Nationalism in South Africa have given the bourgeoisie time to reorganize and stay in power. The very same people who stood for apatheid are now in power with the good wishes of the CP and ANC.. > By the way, regarding our debate generally, I forgot to remind you that Lenin modified the slogan. It is now: Workers and Oppressed Peoples of the World Unite ! Is that alright with you ? Afterall Lenin was a lawyer, so there might have been some petit bourgeois nationalist sentiment slipping in there.He didn't say "unite but remember the workers are still the leader of the two of you ", like it sounds like you want to add on. I have nothing against Lenin's formulation just the Stalinist interpetation which has lead to defeat after defeat of the working class and know with the demise of the Soviet Union has buried Lenins work.. > And more on Lenin, the revolution was an alliance of workers and peasants. Lenin knew the workers would have to form alliances with other oppressed groups. > Then on having anything to do with the bourgeoisie, Lenin set up bourgeoisie in business under the NEP. A Leninist attitude toward the bourgeoisie is not superstitious. Classical stalinist mish mash. You still don't get it right Charlie. Lenin's "alliance"" with the peasantry was connected to the DOP and the Proletariat in power..The stalinist line is the block of four classes and the slaughter of the Shang Hai proletariat and much more.. > > Chas.- You complained about the Viet Namese taking too long to throwout the imperialists. How long is it taking ICL inter-penetrating peoples and revolutionary integration to work ? Are there some Stalinists in ICL screwing it up ? Maybe Charlie..But the Trotskyists never handed it over to capitalism/imperialism like the Stalinists now have done in the ex SU and well on the way in China.. >Chas. - my post-whatever theory is that the working classes in the France and the ex-Soviet Union are so mature that they acted without the party. The Soviet People diminished the threat of nuclear species-suicide by surrendering in the Cold War, giving up their primitive socialism. And the French working class is the Dutchboy with its finger in the dike against European unification. Well well, now. The working class gave up their "primitive" socialism did they now. It is all the masses fault now Charlie. Typical of the Stalinists to find a scapegoat other then the Trotskyists for their rotten politics. A new twist in the involvement of Stalinism . It wasn't the trots but the masses fault that the SU no longer exists. The French stalinist Charlie are in the popular front government which breaks strikes and imposes its racist austerity program on immigrants. Nothing new their they always did this i. In fact during the Algerian war they turned not only a blind eye to the massacre of Algerian workers but actively took part in voting for war credits for the imperialist occupation.. > >Chas. - I agree you have the conservative position. Not because it is loyal to the old fashion , real Leninism - your positions are a caricature of Leninism - but because your insulting treatment of the working class's allies helps the bourgeoisie retain the status quo. Always looking for those bourgeois allies Charlie. The stalinists never learn and they always drown the poor and working class people in blood.. > In the U.S. women and Black people make up over half of the working class. Only a party with a radical program connecting working class victory to the other liberations ( the half of the story that you say is the whole story) AND specific programatic actions against racism and sexism will unite the working class for victory against capitalism, sexism and racism. The Stalinist pop front line in a nutshell. Unite everybody against capitalism. Where ever have the Stalinists got it right? > Chas. - Is it talk radio ? with callins ? Both I believe! Bob malecki --- from list marxism-thaxis-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005