Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 10:44:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Louis N Proyect <lnp3-AT-columbia.edu>
Subject: The Simon Bolivar brigade and internationalism


Louis:

"These men, the 'leaders' of opportunism, will no doubt resort to every 
device of bourgeois diplomacy and to the aid of bougeois governments, 
the clergy, the police and the courts, to keep Communists out of the 
trade unions, oust them by every means, make their work in the trade 
unions as unpleasant as possible, and insult, bait and persecute them. 
We must be able to stand up to all this, agree to make any sacrifice, 
and even--if need be--to resort to various strategems, artifices and 
illegal methods, to evasions and subterfuges, as long as we get into the 
trade unions, remain in them and carry on communist work within 
them at all costs."

(Lenin, "Ultraleftism, an Infantile Disorder")

This advice was given to German left Communists by Lenin in the 
context of trying to break them from sectarian abstentionism. These 
words unfortunately were lifted out of context and served as a model 
for functioning by Communists in the broader mass movement. Every 
movement became one in which Communists sought to advance party 
goals first and foremost. "Democratic centralist" discipline meant that 
the marching orders came from CP headquarters, and ultimately from 
Stalin himself. Sometimes the goal of the mass movement coincided 
with Stalin's goals and sometimes they didn't. When Communists 
acted under discipline to build the CIO, their needs and the needs of 
the labor movement coincided. When WWII began, Stalin instructed 
the American Communist Party to use its influence to put through a 
no-strike pledge. This was not in the interests of the labor movement.

As I have stated on a number of occasions, the Fourth International 
inherited the rotten party-building model of the Comintern. Trotskyists 
opposed Stalin's policies in Spain, German and China and elsewhere 
but shared with him a common understanding of what "Marxism-
Leninism" meant.

In practice this means that the international centers of various 
incarnations of the Fourth International (International Secretariat, 
International Committee, etc.) have seen themselves as the "leading 
body" of a world movement. While Stalin operated from a base of state 
power, the Trotskyists operate from the base of a small office 
somewhere with a mimeograph machine and a telephone.

Somewhere along the line, the leader of Argentinian Trotskyism had a 
falling out with the European Trotskyists who meanwhile were having 
a falling out with American Trotskysism. I have not kept track of this 
business since frankly I am not into trivia.

But this is the context of Carlos' participation in Nicaraguan politics. 
He was one of a number of Latin American Trotskyists who functioned 
in the Simon Bolivar Brigade. They operated under the discipline of a 
"Fourth International" that was based in Argentina. Nicaragua was 
like a trade union as far as they were concerned. It was an opportunity 
for them to put forward genuine "communist" politics since clearly a 
revolutionary situation was present.

The problem with this is that the FSLN, as opposed to the Simon 
Bolivar Brigade, had loyalties to the Nicaraguan people exclusively. 
Whatever mistakes they made, it was within the context of 
revolutionaries operating in their mother country. When they accepted the 
aid of the Simon Bolivar brigade, we can be sure that they didn't know 
that there were strings attached.

The Simon Bolivar Brigade presents itself and offers its assistance as 
fighters and the FSLN accepts. The revolution triumphs and these 
brigadistas begin to work for what we can only conclude is a program 
of overthrowing the FSLN if we draw Carlos' ideas out to their logical 
conclusion. These brigadistas, how many I don't know, were operating 
under the discipline of a small group in Argentina that has created its 
own 4th International. They received their marching orders from this 
body and not from the Nicaraguan people.

This is the source of the problem. This type of "internationalism" is 
not internationalist at all. It is bureaucratic and arrogant. A better 
model for internationalism would be the Sao Paolo forum. This was 
convened by the Workers Party in Brazil and is supported by the 
FSLN, the FMLN and similar currents in Latin America. It does not 
attempt to "intervene" in the struggles of given countries. It does not 
assign cadre to "straighten out" revolutions here and there. It is simply 
a place where socialists can discuss out strategy on a continental basis 
and work together when possible. The forum has been very active 
around issues of environmentalism and indigenous rights, two issues 
that cut across national borders. This is the probably what Lenin had 
in mind when he created the 3rd International, but, as in everything 
else that is done in his name, was wrenched out of context and used to 
bureaucratically impose its will here and there for many decades. We 
need to reject this model and create a new type of internationalism, 
one that is based on respect.



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

     ------------------