Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 10:47:04 -0800
From: iwp.ilo-AT-ix.netcom.com (CEP )
Subject: Re: Vanguardism and 2 Clarifictions to Hugh


You (Hugh) wrote: 
>
>Then  Carlos asks:
>
>>    Now, my question is: what any of these two facts have to do with
>>    vanguardism?  IMO, nothing.  The first was an act of princippled
>>    internationalist action.  The second a "try-out", safe, vehicle 
to
>>    investigate the response from the dictatorship  (even though they
>>    wwere careful, one comrade was assasinated and couple others
>>    kidnapped).

    Hugh:

>And I can't agree. Nicaragua and the  brigades was *not* just an act 
of
>principled internationalist solidarity, important as that aspect of it
>might be. It was putting party resources at the disposal of the 
working
>class and oppressed masses where the fight was at its most acute.

    Carlos:

    Your statement here is a bit contradictory.  You said "was not just
    an act of princippled internationalist solidarity"  (by the way, I
    didn't say "internationalist solidarity", I just plain said inter-
    nationalism -- maybe the difference is terminological).  The you
    said "I was putting party resources at the disposal of the working
    class and oppressed masses ...." --- this *is* a definition of
    Internationalism.

    Hugh:
 I can't
>see any problem with labelling that as vanguard intervention.

    Carlos:

    I have no problem with this sentence.  Agreed.  But it is not the
    expression you used before.  You used the expression "vanguardism"
    which, for me at least, means substitutionism.  But, maybe we are
    having just terminological differences.  Let's see ...

    Hugh:

 The Argentine
>experience was initiated to respond to three elements of social 
movement:
>the fight against the dictatorship, the fight against British 
imperialism
>and the resurgent workers' movement after years of repression under 
the
>dictatorship.

    Carlos:

    Are you talking here about the opening of offices when still the
    dictatorship was in place (that's was what you said before) or
    to the *general* experience of the MAS?

    These are two separate questions.  I have the transcripts of the
    two meetings of the International Secretariat of the IWL(FI) --
    LIT(CI) in which I participated and the meeting of the IEC (Inter-
    national Executive Committee) of the LIT(CI) for your perusal, if
    you wish to see them.  Those two questions were *separated*.

    The question of the *initial steps* of the founding of the MAS were
    severely criticized by the majority of the IEC (Moreno changed his
    position after the discussion) and the MAS *changed its character*.
    The tactic of appearing as socialdemocrats was *rejected* after the
    first issue of Socialist Solidarity. The decision to present itself
    as socialdemocrat had to do with legality and the possibilities     
    opened for elections.

    The opening up of headquarters was, according to the resolutions    
    voted and act " of trying out the extent of bourgeois democracy
    achieved by the struggle of the mass movement".  In my opinion a
    limited experiment, with which I agreed with.

    Hugh:

 It was oriented towards the most active participants in the
>three (often combined) struggles. It was much more than a 'try-out'
>'investigation of the response of the dictatorship' in my 
understanding, as
>it was intended to be part of the anticipated explosion in the 
workers' and
>popular movement following the fall of the dictatorship.
>
    Carlos:

    I think I answered this statement of yours in my pevious sentence.
    But I will add: I agreed with your hindsight appreacition of the
    decision, but as a description of what happened.

    Hugh:

. The problem is, what forces and what principles
>were involved when MAS ran into crisis. Two huge factors were the 
death of
>the leader of this tendency, Moreno, and the collapse of Stalinism in 
the
>ex-Soviet Union.

    Carlos:

    Uhmmmm ..... this seems an oversimplication of question of the      
    crisis of the MAS and the LIT(CI).  Let me point out what some
    of the problems, IMHO, were:

    1. The death of Moreno (he was the only effective Bonaparte among
    the existing, and permitted tendencies and factions)

    2. The corruption of the majority of the Central Committee of the
    MAS.  Out of 23 members, no one had worked in a factory or in a
    regular job for that matter, for the previous ten years (the only
    TWO EXCEPTIONS WERE GUEST MEMBERS, NOT FULL MEMBERS, AND WERE
    EXPELLED SOON AFTER THE FACTIONAL STRUGGLE BROKE OUT).

    There were some problems around the issue of businesses run by or
    with participation of the party (I can give you more details in
    private, only if you are interested) -- I didn't consider this
    item of any importance at the time.

    3. The increasing electoralist frenzy of the party which hurted
    the more revolutionary activity in the working class.

    4. An strident contradiction between the political characterization
    (Argentina and the world are in an even deepening economic and
    political crisis) and the tasks proposed by the party -- defensive
    proposals put fordwar to the mass movement.

    5. The characterization of Argentina as "the center of world        
    revolution" and the MAS as "the beacon of world revolution".  These
    characterization were not only arrogant, they were profoundly wrong
    and of a nationalist character.

    I remember writting "the movement of a finger of the Soviet         
    proletariat will have the importance of 100 revolutions in
    Argentina" and being scorned by some members of the MAS leadership
    as anti-argentinean (This was in 1987).

    6. The curtailment of internal democracy. The effective majority
    of the MAS *refused* to discuss democratically with an important
    minority (more than 1000 members in a tendency) and pushed them
    out.  They taped the phone conversations (See Clarin Newspaper's
    article "TrotskyGate") of minority leaders, they utilized violence
    against them (armed violence!), etc

    An some other things that we can ellaborate.  But the end result
    was that a party of 10,000 was reduced to a diaspora of small
    sects: MAS, 300 members; MST (About the same); PTS (100); LSR (50);
    some people went to Quebracho (I do not know how many) and some 
    others are distributed in another half a dozen other groups.

    Hugh:

>To revert to the 'vanguard' question. It seems as if 'vanguard' and
>'vanguardism' are just 'taboo' words to be avoided because they rile
>people. I think, however, the distinction the words label, as between 
the
>cutting-edge forces in the class - the sectors involved in the most
>militant and most conscious class struggles - and the less aware, less
>combative masses, is central to the Bolshevik tradition. I don't think 
Marx
>would have had any trouble using it  Etcetera)

    Carlos:

    I differentiate between "acting as a vanguard party", I have no
    problem with it and "vanguardism" a peyorative term utilized
    to name substitutionism.  But in this one maybe we have only
    terminological differences.

    Comradely,
    Carlos

 >



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

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