To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
From: Zeynep Tufekcioglu <zeynept-AT-turk.net>
Subject: Re: marxism-digest V2 #968
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 02:40:02 +0300


Hugh wrote:

>This is not what Engels did in relation to the cotton factory in Manchester
>of which his family were part-owners. Thanks to the money Engels got from
>the factory, Marx was able to write Capital and a million other things, and
>also to devote time to party political activities.
>
>An abstractly moral position never won anything for anybody.

It don't feel abstract to me. I've never understood how Engels managed it.
Maybe, that's why he deserves his place in history, as opposed to many who
failed to be capitalist and revolutionaries at the same time.

>If an oil sheikh were to approach a revolutionary organization with offers
>of financial support, I think the routine would be have to be something
>like this: Check it out for police links, if possible; come to an agreement
>making all donations very clearly unconditional; arrange for schooling and
>activities according to the statutes of the party, with a very strict
>period of probation, if the person is interested in becoming a member; work
>out the most valuable allocation of this person's time etc in the all-round
>interests of the party. It's quite likely the whole business would have to
>be kept secret. If the support was genuine, it would be unpardonable to
>kill the goose that laid the golden eggs by demanding poverty, chastity and
>obedience (loyalty, sure). Capitalism is a vast collective system - taking
>out one individual capitalist, when the party could benefit from a regular
>source of income would be crazy.
>
>There's no problem accepting money from rich people or even the state
>(youth activity subsidies or press support handouts, say), but there are an
>awful lot of problems in getting *dependent* on this source of income.
>Small business supporters can be very quixotic or slippery customers, who
>can go bankrupt and land you in the shit with them if you're not careful.
>State support can be cut off or made subject to corrupting conditions.

I accept your solution might also be feasible. As I've said, I don't really
know where we should draw the line, but have this feeling that we should
draw the line somewhere. I still don't think it would work. I've witnessed
again and again rich people, not as rich as my sheikh, who wanted to
support. Either they discontinued their status as a capitalist, or
discontinued revolutionary beliefs. I may be overreacting due to what I've
witnessed. Nothing comes free, everything we accept binds and obliges us.


>>There were times that some friends working in the trade-unions received big
>>sums of money from the union for stupid things like going abroad to attend
>>an international union conference. It is one way the trade union aristocracy
>>here pays themselves off. We debated, and decided to donate the money to a
>>pre-school being built for the children of the workers' in that union. There
>>was no way we could take the money, look those workers in the eye and say
>>"well, sorry but we used it for revolutionary politics".
>
>This is a bit different (union rather than party work), but it also shows
>an apologetic attitude towards revolutionary commitment. If you can't look
>workers in the eye in relation to the work you are doing as revolutionary
>politics, then your party needs an overhaul, and the commitment of its
>militants and their roots in the working class need to be strengthened (to
>put it mildly).

Zeynep:
Our position I think was correct, but some comrades still think, let alone
other people, we're idiots. The union aristocrats are living of the proceeds
of the workers, and are very literally enjoying a life of luxury off the
backs of the workers union subscriptions. The "foreign trip" payments are
very basic to this system. Don't worry, we may be idiots in terms of money,
but we are not idiots politically. We used the opportunity to expose the
sums paid to union workers and officials before the workers, and to develop
closer links. We campaign very strongly against the union leadership which
collobrates with the capitalist class (may well be said to be included in
the capitalist class). We can't take the money in one hand, and campaign as
we do on the other hand.

>I mean, what would you say to the workers if world events suddenly put a
>revolutionary seizure of power on the agenda? 'Sorry, we didn't realize how
>important it was to build a revolutionary party capable of taking power -
>we'll know better next time, honest!'

The workers don't trust revolutionaries very easily. The question on
building a revolutionary party capable of taking power rests upon earning
that trust, not on money. "Technical problems" as money have a way of
solving themselves, when one has the support and the commitment of many.

Regards,
Zeynep

P.S.: I'm just back from helping paint the walls of the new center of the
'Workers University' because we don't have the money for painters. A few
more days of this, and you might convince me. Do you have an oil sheikh at
hand, in case?

P.(P).S: I have a feeling you and I are going to argue very much. If I
remember correctly, somewhere in Don Quixote, Cervantes makes him wish "if
only his enemies were noble". Cheers.



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